Spend 10 second reading through my post history, and then explain who you think I am shilling for.

I am not being paid by anyone for anything I post. Sorry it offends you that someone expresses a genuine opinion.

Good on them for doing that, but I have to say that (unless something has changed since I used them) their user-interface is extremely tedious if you are managing multiple domains.

Funny, I was reluctant because of the name too. After seeing enough positive reviews I decided to give them a shot, and I'm happy with them so far.

I decided to move all of my domains a little less than a year ago because the old registar's interface sucked (no ability to bulk-change contact info) and it was rather expensive anyway. I spent a lot of time researching registrars to see which ones had a good reputation, and NameCheap came up a lot. I ended up using NameCheap, and I've been happy so far. My point is just that if you've never heard of NameCheap, I think you're paying very little attention to the domain name business, because they are quite well-known.

Actually, it's Don't be evil. One could reasonably claim that providing tools to allow other corporations to do evil is, in fact, being evil.

I would assume the concern is more with malware harvesting the info from thousands of phones via some security hole, rather than someone stealing phones one at a time.

You could play out that entire scenario without the Google Wallet info. Look up the phone number from some random person in the phone book, call them, and say "Good morning Mr. Smith, I'm with your bank's fraud unit, and we saw a large transaction on your Mastercard and wanted to verify that it is legitimate..." Sure, it might be a little more convincing if you knew the last 4 digits of the card and info about an actual transaction, but that just bumps up your probability of success a bit.

Just to clarify, the article says there are 23 nations less corrupt than the U.S. (not 23 nations that are more corrupt, as one might assume by the way you worded it). Still pathetic, of course.

OK, the summary omits it, but the article says "We are in the process of finalizing a fix for the issue and expect to make available an update for Adobe Reader 9.x and Acrobat 9.x for Windows no later than the week of December 12, 2011" so Reader 9 will be fixed after all.

The summary makes no mention of a patch for Reader 9, but some of us have been stuck with Reader 9 because Reader X has no IFilter to allow PDF indexing by search tools (even worse, installing Reader X removes any older IFilter that you might already have). So we get to choose between having a security hole or an IFilter. Thanks, Adobe.

If ever I thought there was a link that would go to goatse, that was it. But, no, the photos are of Zuckerberg fully clothed. Not mounting a goat or anything along those lines.

Ugh. That's "incorrect" not "incorred"

incorred

According to this video Carrier IQ has the ability to capture URLs that are entered, including HTTPS URLs. When a browser makes a secure connection (HTTPS), the URL is encrypted before the browser transmits it to the target webserver to protect any sensitive information it may contain. So the carrier would not be able to log such URLs through their equipment -- Carrier IQ allows them to do it by intercepting before encryption is applied.