That sounds poetic and I understand it is a general (likely warranted) shot at windows but it's not really applicable. Cleaning an infected machine results in one less infected machine. The act of cleaning does not generate 2 more infected machines and in fact shrinks the botnet by some, albeit small degree. There is never a situation where cleaning a Windows machine is a bad option - which keeps a significant number of us employed/harassed by friends/relatives.
If you can secure a machine (e.g. by beating the user until they swear they won't click on unknown links) you further reduce the likely-hood of reinfection. I can't remember where I've seen it but I have heard there is some sort of method using a host file but I will not mention it to avoid being down-modded
IPv6 is certainly not the only way forward and is overkill (64 bits for your local network?) for replacing IPv4 as well as being too complex. The correct solution is compression within the current 32 bits - that way you can fit many more than 4 billion addresses. I hear there's a google project on this.
I thought you might be trolling because you can't map a 128bit address space into a 32bit space without collisions when you have >32bits of unique information to store. It looks like there is a patent on this: http://www.google.com/patents/WO2013066969A1?cl=en registered to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_Television_Laboratories,_Inc. not Google. They are a consortium that develops cable modem standards (DOCSIS).
The patent is for a form of NAT which handles 1-1 mapping and allows for collisions with actual/virtual ipv4 addresses by remapping those as well. Each IPv4 device behind the cable model would get a unique IPv6 that the world can see and would see external addresses as a translated IPv4 address. Apparently it is expected to break down when the number of unique connections exceeds 33K/day. Looks like a good transitional form of NAT for consumers who are still running older systems that don't support IPv6. It is not a general solution that could replace IPv6, in fact it requires IPv6 at the ISP level.
how is this different than buying all the books that a current student uses?
It is an additional cost of over $900 which could have covered the cost of a laptop. Tablets are great for consuming content, not so much for creating.
There is a lot of FUD concerning data recovery. It is theoretically possible to recover data from older hard drives that have been overwritten. Peter Gutmann wrote a paper on the method then added an addendum that basically says it probably won't work on modern drives http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutmann_method#Criticism Most of the paranoia is based on a 16 year old paper which is no longer relevant + the fact that people often do a quick format instead of a full then wonder why their data is still recoverable.
I work for the government and I have met many managers who are technically capable of understanding that a single pass will do the trick. Every single one sticks with the party line (multipass wipe/physical destruction) to cover his ass.
Most data leaks happen when a hard drive is lost/stolen/not wiped at all. I have never heard of anyone recovering data from a formatted HD. Having a process at all is a good thing. It's the verification that you've wiped all the data that is important. Degaussing/shredding is an option for failed HDs but it is overkill otherwise.
Multics is security spelled sideways.