Hah. Yeah right. Recreating images in the likeness of is just as much a copyright violation as hitting copy/paste is.

Clone games go down like this all the time.

Hire a lawyer. He'll file a counter notice, and defend you in the lawsuit. Or preemptively sue.

Or hire a wizard and have him wave his fingers to make your game clone go away.

To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the armed forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies. This was punishable by death or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years or both.

I know this is semantic bullshit, but I don't think his intention is to interfere with the operation of the US, or help it's enemies. I think his intention is simply that the information should be leaked, come what may.

The whole 'recursively templated tree' thing is really ingenious. It sets it quite a bit apart from the single tree model of all the other frameworks I'm aware of.

I agree. WPF's design is quite unlike any other UI toolkit I'm aware of. I wish there was a version that worked on !Windows.

".Net" isn't a UI platform. You probably mean WinForms. Or maybe WPF. There are other UI frameworks for .Net, I used to do a lot of work in Gtk#, before I switched to WPF.

I've never used WInforms for anything serious though. Gtk# was always better than it, back then.

First off, his technical points are correct. The fingerprints cannot be used to discover anything specific about you by themselves.

The second point is more complicated. Are we comfortable with being compelled by the government to carry around with us material that they can identify, correlate to discover where we travel, and then use to build a profile of our activities?

I'd say the second point is a duh. We already are. I have on me now a government ID, which I scan to get into a bunch of bars. Which I'm compelled to show on demand to a cop when driving. My car's license plate correlates to me, and lets any camera anywhere identify where I am. I guess I'd wonder how much easier could it get to them? I guess if every hair I dropped could identify me, that'd be a bit worse. But certainly not much.

If we care about the second point, we should really start showing it. You know. Stop driving. Ride a bike. Don't carry ID with you. Since I doubt we're going to do that, they've already won. We should just give them the DNA fingerprints so they stop wasting our tax dollars on doing it the more difficult way. :)

This is silly. Nobody even distributes Linux binaries. They distribute Linux packages. Hell, even on Windows, the number of distributed .exe's has gone down. Most things get packaged into MSI. This is fine.

Maybe what he wants is an easier way for developers to package their stuff for many distros.

What, if any, is the (physical or otherwise) obstacle for this device to become a hacker's darling? Here "hacker" is used in that old, positive meaning.

I guess the same as every other Android phone? A signed flashing process that needs to be cracked?

The only reason people can install custom Android copies on the G1 is because of a leaked SPL and the root console bug. Oh, and the ADP.

Mike,

Hi.

I have over 100+ boxes at work that depend on this plugin. When I get into work tomorrow, if they're not working (they run FF), then I'm not going to have much choice but to switch back to IE, am I?

I frankly did not know you guys had this ability to unilaterally disable things I depend on. That is a bit disturbing. It's going to unexpectedly cost me HOURS tomorrow.

Can you at least switch the block to only block unpatched versions? I'd agree with that.

A vulnerability which has already been patched. I use this functionality on over 100+ machines at the office. I've already deployed the patch. As far as I can tell, there's no easy way for me to disable the block list. I'm going to get into work tomorrow and switch 100+ boxes back to IE, if they don't reverse it. And I won't be switching them back to FF.

Yup. Basically. I'm going to be super pissed if I have to walk around to 100+ machines tomorrow morning and uninstall Firefox. Seriously. That'll be the end of that.

Not exactly. It also allows you to run .Net and WPF apps inline in the browser, hosting a CLR instance. Not to mention mapping the ClickOnce file type.

I don't know. This makes sense to me. The IE frame spawns processes with less privledges than the user has, when running on Vista. This means plugins that are harmful cannot actually access the hard drive or registry, nor a

Since Chrome does not do this, then yes, it is less secure.