They mistyped it there, it's actually a 1e100.net Which is a reference to 1e100 (1 x 10) or a "googol", the name of which google is derived.

"The vulnerability requires that an attacker knows the name of the file they want to access, according to the company." Fat lot of good that does, all the files that are important to your *system* are all named the same on any Win computer, they could do some serious damage that way. Not to mention they could use those files to easily find every file on your computer due to indexing.

I never understood what people thought was so ugly about the UI. What's so bad about it and what should be changed?

Note that the five year old will probably have it easier to learn it, she's not shifted from a solid working and accustomed UI to a backwards peace of crap. She'll be more open to it and need less functions.

Just another virtual world.

I was told that I could listen to the radio at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven, I told Bill that if Sandra is going to listen to her headphones while she's filing then I should be able to listen to the radio while I'm collating so I don't see why I should have to turn down the radio because I enjoy listening at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven.

People have been asking for a universal binary or some sort of Universal Package Manager (UPM, that could work) for linux for ages. I think the main reason why there isn't one yet is the FLOSS nature of Linux. When the source code is open, there is no need for one single binary, it's up to the distro (or user) to make it into an fitting binary package. For that reason I think it wont change much if there was one single Binary. Also I've always thought that more applications should just use .bin files, compatible for all.

Cops are people too and so are mafia and all the rest of that kind of gangsters. She posted their home adress, names and street view pictures and habits on her blog. It would annoy me but I would not Lock her in Cage or anything for it, do you want all paparazi and press to be locked up by a violent gang too?

NO! NO! NO! Why sacrifice a leg to the Beast in Blue for them to protect a finger!? I will never allow criminals to invade my life, therefore I will not give the cops or any monopoly on violence (as the mafia, Ooh how very similar they are) or anyone to gain more power then anyone else. I have no problem with an individual peeking in, because they are just an individual and if they get too bad I will look after myself or get other voluantary sources of security. But I will never give away my privacy or security to one violent group who demands it from me, they will always be worse then one single nuisance.

I have to agree with, sure it'll be annoying if you did, but I prefer it to being bullied around by the gang in blue. And if my job is a public one, I can kind of expect this kind of stuff. They didn't arrest her for taking photos, etc. Else all paparazi and press would be jailed, they are probably even worse. She's just a scapegoat for these badge wearing assholes to make a example out of and reafirm there "untouchable" status and violent coercion.

I know there have been arrests for it, and it saddens me a lot too. However, legally speaking there is no reason they (and she) should be. It's a horrible atrocity that they have been arrested and this should be stopped. Stop the Blue Light Gang!

Well, there's nothing illegal or wrong about posting that information at all. As far as I can see, she's done nothing worth being arrested for, except annoying the Blue Light Gang.

Well if she is indeed a problem then she could be accused of stalking, altough it would be more of a gray zone then usual. However from what I can tell she did and posted on the blog, like "snapshots taken in public", "tipping off a newspaper"and "posting name and address of an officer + street-view photo". All of them are legal for her to do and post on a blog. I see no reason to suspect she's stalking and/or harassing them to the lever where she should get a restraining order, let alone jailtime.

"But of course most people want some magical force to come protect them " Actually you are the one who wants a magical force to protect you. It's a utopian view in the face of dystopia to rely on the police and the state to "protect" you, while clearly they don't work and more importantly they are a bigger danger then what they are supposed to fight. Police officers harass more people then any criminal does. They are a beast that asks three people sacrificed for every one they save, not at all a base for stability. It would be much better if people relied on privatised security systems and the state would step aside. It's an imperfect world, but it would be FAR less imperfect if we didn't have people violently coercing others.

"Stalking" a police officer is indeed not the same crime as stalking someone. Legally speaking. At least if they are on duty. Within this shit system of yours Police officers are "public servants" and can be monitored and reported on by the public when they are preforming their job, e.g. photographing and videotaping a police officers is completly acceptable even witouth their permission in contrast with other individuals.