I am almost certain the new 'convenience' that we already used to have but lost will be introduced after a company makes millions introducing some newfangled technology that rips off our government (really.. the taxpayers). It works like this:

Step 1: Add major inconvenience due to 'security'
Step 2: Consult with private consultants (read.. former government officials) on how to get rid of new inconvenience and make a ton of money
Step 3: Purchase new unproven technology for all airports with taxpayer dollars and make 'private industry' friends rich

This is how it worked with the backscatter machines and this is how it will work with the new 'laser scanners.'

Maybe I am just playing devil's advocate, but you seem confident in calling Burzynski a quack. But I would assume your only evidence of calling Burzynski a quack is other people calling Burzynski a quack unless you have personal experience with Burzynski.

The fact is that the medical community as a whole has not cured cancer. Yet, the medical community supposedly decides what is the right way and wrong way of treating cancer patients. So outsiders, like Burzynski, face huge uphill battles in order to do anything different. Yet, something different than exists is what is needed to cure cancer.

As far as litigious behavior, let him threaten to sue. Maybe the truth will come out. I am sure if I posted all sorts of criticisms about my doctor that he did not believe were true, he would threaten to sue me too.

The rate of cancer survival in the medical industry is pretty bad ~ shouldn't the entire industry be criticized more?

I don't care if it's "medical" or not. Are his customers (patients) happy with his work? If not, they should be the ones suing and criticizing.

We dealt with the USB key problem at a chemical plant. They got Conficker in one of the distributed systems my company installed. (Rockwell FactoryTalk) Even though our computers were configured with group policies to ignore thumb drives, other infected computers (different systems integrator) infected ours as well. We ended up sending group policies to the rest of the computers on the network and then removing the infection..

Operators had been plugging in their cell phones into the HMI computers to charge.. They got recognized (windows default) as a removeable disk.

So, yes.. there is more than just keeping plant networks off the Internet.. Plants also need to keep skilled IT people around to maintain their control systems just like they keep instrument technicians and electricians. However, most plants I have seen are severely understaffed in the IT arena.

Physical keys are used for the lockout/tagout procedure during maintenance cycles. But, there is usually no reason for physical keys at the operator terminal. Usually, you have to check in at a guard shack before you enter the plant. Then, often, you have a key card that swipes you into the area you are authorized to be. After that, further security starts to just get in the way of plant operations. Plants can typically trust the people that have physical access to the area.

I'm in this line of work.. The password was not the problem. Even the hacker is thinking like 'corporate IT' would think in terms of security. The plant floor is different.

Here's the rule: A computer that controls industrial machinery should not be connected to the Internet. The only part of an industrial process that can even possibly be connected to the Internet is historical data and alarming.

HMI software is typically a set of screens representing the automation parts of a plant process. This means that in order to start/stop a motor or energize a valve, the screen is required. It is insecure to put a password on that screen. Yes.. insecure. The priorities at a plant are different. It is always the most secure to allow control of the plant to the people at the plant. There are physical E-stop buttons on control panels in case of emergency, but the E-stop is not the end all to prevent industrial disasters. For example, if a person has his hand caught in a valve, hitting the E-stop may cause the valve to move. Another example would be an exothermic process where explosive gases could accumulate in the wrong parts of the process, hitting the E-stop may not get rid of the gas. The operator at the plant is in charge of the process - it is critical that he or she always have control over the system.

Therefore, don't connect your plant floor to the Internet.. unless you want China to be able to control it. If white-collar executive-type people want to see pretty screens, give them historical data.

Here's simple logic on 'carriers' or ISPs:

ISPs either have a monopoly or pseudo monopoly (in practicality) or they have competition. Therefore, there are two types of situations:

1. Monopolistic - Upgrading networks not necessary
2. Market-based - Carriers must upgrade networks to compete or lose customers

In either situation, there are two types of sub-situations:

1. Net-neutral - Carriers must upgrade networks to satisfy bandwidth demand, content decided by individuals
2. Prioritized - Upgrading networks not necessary, low-priority traffic dropped, content decided by corporations

What we have now in most of America is Monopolistic, Net-neutral. Carriers are arguing for Monopolistic, Prioritized. Consumers demand Market-based, Net-neutral. What should we get? Market-based, Either. What will we get most likely? Monopolistic, Prioritized.

The fact we even need a study to prove that the carriers are lying is ridiculous. The best incentive to force ISPs to upgrade their networks is MORE and DIVERSE competition. It is not free-market competition when the only 'normal bandwidth' Internet access at home for a consumer is a choice between either the local cable company or local telco. It is not free-market competition when the only cellular bandwidth is a choice of 1 of 3 major carriers that control hardware and software of the devices and lobby in unison to our government. Carriers are essentially arguing to continue a monopoly and ignore advances in technology that allow unlimited upgrades in bandwidth.

Instead of arguing net neutrality at all, if our lawmakers started making it easier for some competition in the marketplace, ISPs that do not deliver all traffic quickly would die off.

Instead of trusting the guy that originally worked to create the monstrocity, how about we trust the guy that fought against it originally? We had one outspoken guy in government saying we do not need to give up freedoms for temporary safety the day after 9/11..
Rep John Mica says 'I helped create it. It sucks. We should privatize it.'
Rep Ron Paul says 'I voted against it. It sucks. We should get rid of it.'

I believe the new cockpit doors did more to combat terrorism than all of the air marshalls and TSA screeners combined.. and the doors did not do much.

HFT does not help the market in any way. It does not promote the investing of capital. Going into and out of a company in less than a second is ridiculous. Steps need to be taken to stop HFT in its tracks before the whole market is ruined.

This will fix HFT:

1. random delay in all trades.. stick a 100ms to 1000ms delay before all trades are posted on the market
2. tax all trades by a miniscule percentage.. give straight to government debt
3. enact a rule that all trades stand.. erroneous trades made by a computer algorithm will never get rolled back

Seriously.. 'I don't know why there is still such craze with high capacity drives for laptops?' That is because you have a myopic view of your single career from your single life experience. You are not a walking market. Why make such sweeping statements?

For my career, I am expected to have virtual machines and various software with me for different scenarios when I am called in emergencies (industrial programming)... No matter how much space my laptop drive has, I keep it filled.