Again - all i said is that having upnp off is preferrable to having it on. I also hinted that the amount of buggy programs (PC software as well as software in devices like printers, DVRs, etc) is much larger than the amount amount of malicious programs.

I have not talked about any other security measures that are or are not, should or should not be in place. Instead of arguing my point - how and why is upnp on preferred to manually opening minimum number of ports - you attribute me a lot of things i have NOT SAID and argue with them. Keep up the good work.

I did not say that closed TCP ports are an end to all security woes - i do not know where you took that from. I did not quote any probability of different attack vectors. I merely compared upnp on vs. upnp off situation and said that upnp off on the router is more secure than upnp on.

What you are saying, is essentially - "I have my front door key under the mat - and the only three people who used this key are people who i would have let in anyway. And that key under the mat is just common sense as the crooks can come in by breaking the window and through the chimney or con the cleaning lady anyway."

Why would you let your kid use the same user account as yourself (or grandpa). Are you a fan of deleted documents? Just make a separate account for DVR, leave the soft running and fast-user-switch out of it. And a separate restricted accoun for the kid.

And on a side note - if the computer recording your cameras is in a place where a 3 year old can access it, this computer will probably be the very first thing stolen - so i think you are making this crap up.

The difference is simple (but huge). To allow a program or device to make an outgoing NAT connection, i have to assume that it is not malicious. To allow programs and devices map incoming ports via upnp i have to assume that it is not malicious AND it is not buggy enough to allow gazillion script kiddies access to my network. So thanks, but no thanks on the upnp front - i keep my open tcp ports to a minimum.

Well... If you plug your random DVR (or print server, or any device for that matter) tcp port through your router, you deserve what you get. If you leave upnp on, you deserve what you get. Openvpn costs nothing.

http://www.xkcd.com/1096/

Yea, but the argument here is that he did not make 100mil, therefore it is not a 100mil scam. 100mil was an imaginary profit, or "retail value" of the software he sold. That would probably not have been sold at retail price anyway.

Anyway. Who BUYs pirated software? His clients should be fined for stupidity.

No assistant gets any royalties even now.
I would propose the same people get royalties who do now. Let's say the director is assigned a 1/5 cut of the royalties - if he dies, the movie is that much cheaper to license. Until all the specified personnel have died - at which point the movie becomes royalty-free.
Then all artists get rewards from their works during their lifetime (which was the idea in the first place) and heirs get none.

Copyright was meant to feed the auhors, not their heirs. Copyright of any work should expire once its auhor passes away.

Surely, you mean command.com?

Batteries lasting a couple of days vs one has nothing to do with digital vs analog. I have had a digital (GSM) phone with a battery that lasts for two weeks easily. Batteries these days don't last more than a day because of those gigaherzes of cpu to power, inches of screen to light and constant communications for smartness.
And by the way - GSM goes easily to 35k feet (11km) - if there are no obstrucions - you know - like in the AIR. We use a ferry to travel from Tallinn (Estonia) to Helsinki (Finland) and only right in the middle of this ~80 KM journey is there no cell reception from either shore. I would extrapolate that at least 30 km (3 times the height of commercial air traffic) is easily doable.
Cell phone reception only sucks if you have buildings or plants in the way. Or a mountain.

I refer you to the upper right corner where a banner states that the website in question is W3C validated HTML 4.0.1 (i haven't checked it, but that is what the site owner claims).
However your question is irrelevant because none of the W3C standards that i know of, addresses eyesoreness.

The trouble is that Pirate Party in Sweden is no way a dominant policymaker in Sweden. It is a tiny minority with 2 members of parliament.

And most importantly - its not a particularly amazing piece of code. I am not a programmer, but know how to write basic stuff in a few languages - and i do not find a TWO LINE LOOP that fills the screen with a choice between two characters that make up something that LOOKS LIKE A MAZE, but is not necessarily navigable not a least bit amazing.