I don't know if you are an Aussie but it seems to me that the Government is being pushed in this direction by the owners of media companies.

I'd say this comes from the religious right in our nation. Conroy is just recently shmoozing up to the likes of Packer and Murdoch because he needs their support as no one else will.

That's how non-MS devices are able to communicate with it.

And even if it were a completely closed solution that only MS phones could connect to, so what? How is it a corporation's responsibility, internally, to work with other devices? Sure, if I ran a company I'd make it as easy as possible for people to connect because I'd want to enable them to check their work email elsewhere. But if security were more of a priority, or if maintaining a simpler system were, I see a lot of merit to locking it down to a single protocol.

Not in a big house, and not with Coax. But I've used phone cord (not Cat3, the 4-wire flat one) to pull Cat5 in a home.

First, there's no way that you can take illegally obtained "evidence" and punish the student for it. It goes against the 4th amendment, and is unethical on so many levels. I strongly doubt that this case will go too far in court.

Second, why the hell do they need to spy on students anyway? It's good that they're giving the students laptops, but what they do at home (regardless of all the stupid shit they do) is none of the school's business, nor is it in their jurisdiction. I could make a rant about how parents need to step it up and take better care of their kids, but I'll just sum it up: schools should stay out of parental territories. It's bad for the student, and it's bad for the school.

Whoever was running this, either the school IT admins or even the higher school administration should be at least suspended pending further review.

I'd guess he can afford the house because he doesn't throw money away when he doesn't have to. But I agree with pretty much everyone in this thread, including you: Just use the coax to pull new cable. I recently did this in an ancient three story house. It took a couple of hours to do all the runs but it was not really that difficult and saved a LOT of time and effort in the end.

I'm really surprised how many people are that close to where they were born.

Or maybe they didn't understand the poll.

That is because the referenced article is about security (you cannot tell this from the title alone, but it is clear from the context in which the original appears.) It does not address design or semantic errors, so the 'chip & pin is broken' issue from yesterday would not be a candidate, and the chosen errors are weighted by frequency of occurrence. All in all, it is a pretty narrow scope for such a grandiose title.

Northern U.S. didn't have back-to-back blizzards dropping 3 f***ing feet of snow last January, either. Who is going to go rob houses in that?

Yeah, I was thinking the same... how much ram are we talking about.. and ofcourse which version are they running? 32-bit or 64bit, as people should know that putting more ram as 4GB when running 32bit windows doesn't do anything with the more ram (it can even slow things down.. If you want to use a lot of ram you have to use 64bit windows)... Why anyone wouldn't put at least 4GB into their computer when running Windows 7 is really beyond me, especially when the price of ram is so low, and the advantages are great...

I just sent a note off to US-CERT. Anyone else reading this and experiencing these attacks, feel free to list them here.

Attach a CAT5/6 AND a string, and pull like hell. You'll be glad you have a string in the wall when you want to pull CAT7.

Just remember, when you attach something to the string, always attach a new string too. It sucks when you finally finish pulling a run, only to have forgotten the replacement string.

Sure. Plenty of times something is announced but never released or released far, far later than originally intended. The former is vaporware, the latter can be debatable. But a product that is done being designed, that has sample models produced, and that has a concrete release date in the near future doesn't meet the definition by any stretch.

I was with you until the last word.

The iPad hype is ridiculous, and the fact that so much media attention is directed at a product that hasn't been released is frustrating. But it certainly isn't "vaporware." It's a real product with working models that real reporters have handled. It has a release date announced, and even if it slips (I'm guessing it will, given Apple's past) there isn't any doubt that these will be out there in the wild for real people to buy.

Consistency in user interface isn't an end unto itself. Consistency is a means to making the UI easier for users to understand.

I develop software that runs on Windows. I follow Microsoft's conventions for button size and placement because the majority of our users are accustomed to those conventions. When I give them a button that looks familiar and does in my application what it does in others, I'm able to tap into previous Windows experience to make my software easier to use.

I'm at best an average user interface designer. I need things like this to cheat and make a more usable product.

Apple has UI designers that are significantly better than that. Many third party iPhone application developers are also extremely good. A good enough UI designer can come up with an interface that is both intuitive and perfectly suited to the task at hand without looking like the other UIs out there.

The fact that they aren't being consistent isn't bad if the end result is simple to use for both beginning and experienced developers.

Whoops, that was cut off.

My employer has hundreds of developers. We're growing and always looking for more. HR is challenging.

Let's say you want to hire 300 people next year. 100 of them will be software developers. You use technology that will require training; even if a new hire knows the languages you use, he doesn't know your current tools. Hiring and training are both quite expensive.

You've got some options available to you.
1. You could give every interested applicant a test to see how good a programmer he is.
2. You could require that applicants have relevant experience.
3. You could require that applicants have relevant education.

If you're hiring a small number of people, #1 sounds great. But when you get into larger pools of applicants, this becomes less workable. #2 works well if there's a lot of experience out there doing what you want. But by requiring experience, you lose anyone who could quickly learn what you need. #3 lets you find people who were, at least, able to graduate from college.

What it really comes down to is which is worse for you: false negatives or false positives. If you don't have many applicants, you don't want too harsh a filter early in the application process because you can't afford to lose good candidates from your pool. False negatives are your enemy. If, on the other hand, you get 60,000 applicants a year, you really need a way to get rid of the false positives. You probably don't like the fact that you're not even considering some people who'd do an excellent job. It's frustrating and can feel unfair. On the other hand, if you're getting enough good people to do what you need, the fact that you're losing out on some other good people is acceptable.