Yes. I would love to see the list of bureaucrats imprisoned under similar regimes for non-emergency use of this "emergency only" access. Due to sophisticaed data compression, I feel confident that I can store this list in a zero-byte file.

"Is it time for the government to roll out legislation that will enforce safety standards for car computers as well?"

Here's a suggestion: make the maker of the car liable for successful remote-takeover attacks (not involving physical access). For actual damages. No matter what kind of waiver or "user agreement" the user is asked to sign (in fact, make those explicitly *illegal* if they attempt to subvert this, except in the case of experimental vehicles of very limited numbers). That way the lawyers would squash the "bright ideas" of the marketing guys, until there's security technology that management is willing to bet the company on. And, oh yes, if the government asks for a "remote kill switch"? Have the *government* be liable in court for abuse of it. That'll probably shut down *that* bright idea, too. For a little while.

This will probably retard things like self-driving cars for years. And that wireless access point in your car would for sure no longer be able to talk to the car itself. But I believe this would be a good thing. And if cars come, from now on, with only three indicator lights, that's a shame. But probably worth it. I don't like the idea of Unknown Hackers doing to highway traffic all over the country what they did to Sony's IT.

I'd come down hard on the last line as still relevant.
/*
* If the new process paused because it was
* swapped out, set the stack level to the last call
* to savu(u_ssav). This means that the return
* which is executed immediately after the call to aretu
* actually returns from the last routine which did
* the savu.
*
* You are not expected to understand this.
*/

(credit to http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/...) And yes, let me forestall a lot of comment -- as the link above mentions, the code associated with this comment in the v6 UNIX kernel was wrong.

For those who didn't recognize it, "TBOM" means, I think, "The Book Of Mormon".

"...but the news is promising if in fact it will bring more information to the information-starved masses of North Korea".

I don't see why the existence of ".kp" domains will bring more information to the folks in North Korea, any more than the words
"Democratic People's Republic" in the country's official name would make it owned by the people, democratic, or a republic.

Labels have power, sure, but not always the way one hopes.

The bald guy with the coffee cup is named "Wally" -- don't expect him to get any work done. Don't piss off the lady named Alice -- she turns violent at times. Dilbert would be a nice guy for your sister to marry, but it's not going to happen. Steer clear of HR entirely. And, oh yes, it's not polite to mention your boss's pointy hair to him.

This has "IT Strategy by Partly Comprehended Magazine Article" written all over it.

I love Australia and New Zealand, but a consequence of pervasively metered internet service means that you must check what an AU/NZ hotel means by "internet access". As one of the bandwidth hogs who (for example) downloads podcasts and uploads pictures, I found that it was startlingly easy to hit some limits. Further, the limits can bite you.

When checking a hotel in a country like AU or NZ, be sure and ask:

• Is there an upper limit on how much I can download/upload without an additional fee? Some AU/NZ hotels would solemnly assure me that all hotels have such limits and such pricing schemes -- but this wasn't actually true.
• If I go over the limit, does internet access stop? What would I have to do if I want it to start up again? Bear in mind that you might not know when those video podcasts you subscribed to last month will all suddenly have new episodes, or when your boss will send you a gig or two labeled "Better look at this" -- and fees on the order of (as I recall) $0.10/megabyte can really add up when a gigabyte is involved!

For markets to work, both sellers and buyers must be sharp dealers when it comes to pricing. At least once I changed hotels when "unlimited internet" turned out to be "unlimited in the sense that there's no upper limit on how much we'll charge you." After that, I made sure to have a tediously detailed conversation about internet pricing when choosing hotels.

I think hotels *should* charge by the bit if they want to -- I just think that they'll have to get by without my patronage -- just like a hotel that wanted to charge extra for towels, by the liter for hot water and toilet flushing, and by the joule for electricity (including elevator rides!) would find me checking out quickly, or more likely, never staying there.

If you don't want this sort of regime, use your wallet to try to stop it -- hunt around, find hotels and service providers who say things like "No, we used to charge by the bit, but it turned out to be a source of bad feeling, and not worth the money".

It's not inevitable that we'll wind up with by-the-bit pricing -- but it's inevitable that bean-counters will try it. And, who knows? Maybe that is the way things should work. But right now, you have a choice.