The courts have disagreed with your assessment.
Default deny is a great method and I've been using it for a long time. I'm not sure where your Web access brainstorm comes from but it has no place in a security strategy of default deny. Default deny is very very simple. Either you are a trusted IP or you aren't. Every security strategy has weaknesses. Default denies biggest weakness is that it isn't flexible. But it's biggest strength is that it can massively restrict the amount of potential connectors to a system.
Go practice your trolls and come back. Nothing says dated and 5 years ago like mentioning Linux Hater's Blog
Buying development only confirms how far behind they are app-wise.
"And this isn't a Microsoft fanboi rant" Why are these words always included in Microsoft fanboi rants?
GTFO, that EULA is specifically for the website and has nothing to do with Uplay or their games.
And I use Adblock full on, full time. Different strokes for different folks.
Exactly! I have no moral qualms about cooperative time shifting.
And still you offer none...
The prius is the most dogshit looking car there is. Nothing futuristic about it in the least.
Paul Thurott is an unabashed shill. Nothing to see here move along
The record companies disagree with you. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster Ltd. http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/04-480.pdf "The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod."
And your work is much appreciated!
Your ignorance of networking technology is showing all over the place.
From the New York Times http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/time-warner-cable-profits-on-broadband-are-great-and-will-grow-because-of-caps/ "Mr. Hobbs tried to strike a balance, saying that while the company is concerned about the cost to maintain its broadband network, investors should not be worried. He said it was “absolutely not” true that Time Warner’s profits were being squeezed by the cost of heavy broadband users. " AT&T's actual release says the following "Lopsided usage patterns can cause congestion at certain points in the network, which can slow Internet speeds and interfere with other customers’ access to and use of the network." Not exactly a convincing argument that they truly have an issue. Especially as their revenues, profits rise and their costs for infrastructure and bandwidth drops. http://stopthecap.com/2011/03/14/stop-the-cap-investigates-atts-justification-for-internet-overcharging/ ""Clear conjecture?" Surely you jest. Unless you've made an enormous breakthrough in networking technology, all existing network interfaces can only handle a finite amount of information at once." No jest of all. What enormous breakthrough is needed. Just investment of their profits. If one of their FTTN cabinets is congested they add another or increase the backend as needed. Not exactly a miraculous trick when you are talking about fiber. The fiber that feeds that cabinet can handle many times the needed bandwidth for now and for well into the future. Best of all backend costs for the additional bandwidth and cost for the hardware drop every year.