Usernames for a vast number of sites default to you email address - with a different password for each site.
As such, people end up sticking patterns in their passwords to keep track of which is which... or, worse, they use the same pwd for every account.

I'm more worried about the number of times I've put the wrong username / password combo in a login prompt for some site, when that username/password is valid for another side.

muscle memory too, is a killer in this regard.

eg if your email address is the same as your domain username - how many sites have you given your work account details to due to muscle memory alone?
Sure, the site failed the login - but who says they destroyed the details of the attempt ?

Facebook and the death of texting is one thing, but I'm still amazed that Skype hasn't absolutely destroyed the revenue of carriers everywhere.
I mean sure, they get the data - but VOIP and Skype are infinitely cheaper than paying per call

It seem we finally all got the video phones that sci-fi has been throwing in our faces for years, and the world went "meh..."

I'm sorry to say, but this will turn to shit.

My daughter was part Kevin 07s laptop trial program a couple of years ago in a Victorian primary school.
They gave every student in her year a netbook for $150 with everything on it. Win 7, Office etc. and they used them in just about every class.

It was a really, really good initiative.... until they broke.

The schools had enough seed money to pay a tech to come in and set them up initially, after that there was no more support. Teachers who were technically minded had to resolve network issues and hardware failures themselves - and handle the backlog of netbooks from kids of teachers who had no idea.

The netbooks were on the education networks, so they were locked down so tightly that parents who were technically minded, couldn't do anything to fix them.
In the end kids had to share machines in class and broken netbooks didn't get fixed.

These could be wonderful programs, but the politicians (as usual) just don't give a shit once the ribbon has been cut and the photo op is gone.
No tech support in the schools means no program - its pretty simple really.

My immediate reaction to the story title was that MS was actively going to prevent DVD playback unless you'd paid for Media Center. Good that thats NOT the case.

By that logic we wouldn't need a price gouging inquiry in Australia.

The $AU has been at parity with the $US or above for years now - but Australians are still paying massively over the top prices compared to their American counterparts.

While I understand that the AFL and Telstra have a lot invested in the outcome of this... I don't understand how they're the ones bringing the case against Optus.

Optus is recording the Channel 7 feed in its entirety on behalf of the user - there is no dispute about this.

Apart from making Telstra's product worthless, what does this case have to do with them? Its not Telstra's content that Optus is recording - its Channel 's
Apart from making the AFL's deal with Telstra worthless, what does this case have to do with them? Again, its not the AFL's content that Optus is recording - its Channel 7's

So where is Channel 7 in all of this? Nowhere - they're getting their feed, including ads, distributed via the internet and, thus, reaching a wider audience - they'd be quite ok what that.

So how are the AFL and Telstra bringing a copyright case against Optus for content that isn't theirs?

How hard is it to say, "No, we never, ever access private messages or contact information for any reason"?

Really, really hard. Because as soon as any company does this, some back office dweeb from the company pipes up with "actually, thats not technically correct..." and now they're openly lying about it. PR and politicians alike never want to talk in absolutes because it can only ever come back and bite them...

The problem with this is The Wall Street Journal is now just another rag spewing the opinions of its owner, Rupert Murdoch.

And Rupert Murdoch's climate change skepticism and his willingness to push this agenda through his news empire through conservative fanboys and other stories is long documented. A simple google search on Rupert Murdoch climate change shows just how ridiculous it is to put your faith in any climate change story from a News Corp, News International or News Limited organisation - even if they're right.

In fact Rupert Murdoch's fanboys have done such an excellent job of muddying the waters and inciting mindless division that its almost impossible now to have a constructive debate on the topic. Which was always the intention IMO. Arguments sell newspapers.

yes... but you are also solely responsible for the content of your posts should you slander or defame someone else - its a have cake/eat cake kinda thing ;-)

like the moon landing ?