Here's an interesting idea though. What if they're not seeing the cost of annoyed customers as actually being above the cost of upgrading the system? In other words, a bleeding effect. It's not necessarily a big wound that kills you, but the little wound that just won't stop leaking.

Cable (n) - A telegram sent abroad.

You could have at least thrown in a coupon for Bennigan's! Make them feel like they won something!

I know overhead can be a problem, especially with how much overhead there already is in exchanging information. However, the authentication should only be applied to the packets generated by the routing protocol, and not all packets. Therefore, overhead is limited. That is, unless every packet has to be authenticated. I'm not that far in my studies yet.

So... what you're saying is we should all start using that nifty authentication feature several routing protocols support, because it would make routing more secure? I suppose the better question is, why haven't we done it?

Are the Republicans promising to vote it down because they're opposed to Net Neutrality, or because they're opposed to a Democrat? Serious question.

A) Never underestimate the stupidity people will engage in when it concerns their money

B) Everyone's already acting like the sky is bleeding falling with these diplomatic cables, so you can imagine the same will happen with a leak on the banks.

C) Continuously saying "How?" is not a valid defensive argument.

If the situation gets out of hand, causing a panic and forcing the banks collapse, what happens to the people's money? Even with guarantees on deposits, there's no way to even come CLOSE to covering everyone. In other words, take Black Tuesday and replace the stock market with the banks.

...would you kindly read the metaphor again? The fire is burning . In the metaphor, that means things are getting done . The difference is whether you keep the process stabilized or let it devolve into chaos.

1st point: I actually included whistle-blowers as people who are not inherently corrupt. Those would be the people who speak out against said people, would they not?

2nd point: It's like a controlled forest fire. If you carefully maintain it and promote stability, nature can run its course without causing more of an impact to people than it should. If instead, you simply sit back and let it burn chaotically, then it's going to cause a lot of unneccessary damage to innocent people. Perhaps it's not the best metaphor, but it's the best I can come up with at the moment. Yes, no matter what you do, people are going to get hurt, but they'll be hurt a heck of a lot less if you manage the event properly.

We get these stories a lot on /. What's the surprise here? One competitor is talking smack about another. This is what they do. They do it on a regular basis. Wake me up when, I don't know, when Apple admits that the Android might be a good product. Or when hell freezes over. You know, whichever you want to use for your timepiece.

You're making a false assumption. He's not saying all people are corrupt. He's not saying whistle blowers are corrupt. He's saying people who just want to see corruption burn are corrupt. I wouldn't use that word, I'd instead call them extreme. No, corruption is not a good thing, but you have to have a logical progression in excising it. You can't let your desire for vengeance against "The Man" blind you. If you incite chaos you sacrifice stability, and in the process you end up hurting the innocent along with the guilty.

Well, to take a third option, what if he's heavily broadcasting his actions for a reason? You know, the US government scrambled around doing damage control in preparation for the cable leak. Maybe this is his way of saying, "Hey, I have this information and I'm going to give you the chance to do something before it hits the fan."

Devil's Advocate to be sure, but considering the goal of this is transparancy, it would mean a lot more if the bank would come clean itself, rather than wait for a third party who claims to have them already beaten.

What spreads peace is honesty, not duplicity. If two nations can't trust each other, then how on earth do you expect them to be at peace with each other? Yes, the leak does throw diplomacy into chaos, but on the other hand, the chaos wouldn't have existed if everything was on the level the whole time.

Well, when America is the big dog who wants to get into everyone's business, you should expect a proportional amount of dirt on them to be created. You go to where the story is, not where you want the story to be. That said, Wikileaks has leaked information on other nations, and it claims to have information on Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks#Leaks