>I'd destroy my hard drive too if I got word the government was coming.
Are you saying you have any drives that are not full-disk encrypted yet? Amazing. Seriously, just amazing.

Skype provides encrypted calls and SMS for how many years now? Oh, this is from Forbes...

Let me put it this way.

I would not be willing to hire you.

I would call that a lame attempt to change the subject.

We do not require that every law be perfect, or a legal regime to have no flaws, for us to have any notion of right and wrong, or criminal and victim.

Leaving a company locked out of their equipment is not leaving them in working order, nor does it constitute a "lack of damage."

If you can be that wrong, there's not much point in addressing the other ways your "interpretation" of the facts is wrong.

He's a criminal. What happened between the time he was arrested and conviction isn't that unusual as the DA refined the case, let alone in a case with some technical complexity. He deserves to be where he is, in jail.

I'm aware that's the story his lawyer's spread.

Here's from their rulebook:

"In accordance with these strategies the following policy statements apply to the key areas and functions of the Security Perimeter. In all statements where the “County Authority” (CA) is mentioned, depending on the County reporting structure, this can be the CIO, CISO, CTO, CEO or COO and implies the CA or their designee(s)."

"If someone demands a password, refer him or her to this document or have him or her call someone in Information Security."

Obviously he hated having to do what his boss told him enough to go to prison. But something tells me that if we go through the records of all the people who asked him for the passwords, we would find that among them were at least one person "in Information Security," or who was "CIO, CISO, CTO, CEO or COO and implies the CA or their designee(s)."

And as I've pointed out over and over - if he was telling the truth about this legal issue being his real concern, he would have acted like most any of us would and gotten a lawyer in there. He would have just asked for them to sign a one-pager releasing him from liability in exchange for handing over the passwords, instead of acting like a dick and giving a fake password back, which is what I'm given to believe he did?

Yep. Feeling lonely.

I've just bought OpenSUSE dvd from Novell's website - as a way to say "Thank you!"...

>There is nothing intrinsic to Windows which makes client software more susceptible to these things

Let's look at your own points.

>It's far more common for a modern virus to be spread by an infected email

Infected email. There is no such thing at my Mac. One can send some bad thing to me by email, but then what? What do you mean "infected"? Looks pretty much Windows-intrinsic to me.

>drive-by download exploiting either the browser or a plugin

Again no such thing exists on my Mac. Well, probably Safari can be tricked to download an app or a disk image. But then what? It will not be started automatically and it can't do much without my explicit permission anyway. Windows-intrinsic No 2.

>to account for running under an account with reduced privileges

There is no such thing as "reduced privileges" in MacOS. There are "normal privileges". Everyone even an admin account runs with normal privileges. To do something dangerous even an admin account needs to ask for permission. Windows-intrinsic No 3. No, I am not nit-picking here. One thing is to recommend to "reduce privileges" for the enhanced security, the other - is to not having an easy way to run an account without these "reduced privileges".

>you don't need an enormous number of privileges to scan through a user's home directory and forward anything that looks interesting to a remote server

Anything interesting? Like passwords? Passwords are in the Keychain. You can't access the Keychain from an application that is not authorized to access the Keychain. The concept that you can harvest "many interesting things" just by scanning a home dir is definetely a Windows-intrinsic. No 4.

Have I missed something?

Buy our Ad Blocking mini attack helicopter now!

>But what in the world gives you the right to posses a work just because it exists if the creator/owner prefers that you not see it or own it?

Now, let's make the record straight once and forever:
1. I am the owner of any song, not the song's creator. My ancestors invented words "I", "love" and "you" - and all other words and musical tones. It is impossible to create any human art without using something that my ancestors created.
2. Why do I agree that the creator gets money for the work that he creates, but which I do own as soon as he creates it anyway? Simple: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
3. If the creator is not selling the song, his exclusive right to sell the song does not promote the progress of useful arts. Indeed: those songs that are on sale now - are they the progress or the regress? are they useful art or are they useless art? If even a single one of previously created songs is unavailable to the public, then you can't say that newly created songs are better than that old song, right? That means you can't say there is a progress in arts. That means:
4. If the creator is not selling the song, his exclusive right is void.

Pretty sure you can adjust how much RAM Exchange 2007 sucks down, and that it sucks it down by design-- its called caching. In fact, a quick search turns up a number of articles explaining why Exchange 2007 behaves this way compared to 2003 (basically, to improve performance by minimizing disk reads-- ie cache), how it works (uses most unused memory, dynamically freeing RAM up if pressure to do so occurs-- see above link), and how you can limit the behavior (set msExchESEParamCacheSizeMax in ADSIEdit).

I mean, im all about bashing MS when they get something wrong, but throwing blame on them for using unused RAM in exactly the way its SUPPOSED to be used (caching on-disk data) is just silly.

Stop being difficult and doing fake Econ101 waffling - the price went up because there isn't a big supply of the high grade stuff available right now and you can't just use anything.
Also you linked to an f*ing adverisement even if you don't recognise that yourself.
What should be obvious is that it all needs to be enriched and the stuff of higher quality gives you more when it is enriched - but with most uranium it is just not worth it and eventually you'll reach a point where it takes more energy to get it out than it will give you. That is why China, India etc want to import better quality uranium ore instead of using the stuff they have plenty of.