Just a reminder

... that the Windows WMF security flaw existed undetected from 1990 to the end of 2005. Compared to that, two years is fairly trivial.

@Rob Cumberland

Copyright isn't a valid exemption, but "information intended for future publication" is. See http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_1 (Part II of the Act) for the legalese.

Compatible...

...with Firefox 2.0? Presumably they mean "compatible with accepted industry standards"?

People are biggest threat to IT security?

Time for a bit of pedantry here. Customers are not the threat - customers are the vulnerability. The threat comes from the "viruses, worms and hacking attacks" mentioned in the article. Those threats make use of the vulnerability presented by the fallible people involved.

Threats should be removed, if at all possible.

Vulnerabilities should be patched. Training, anyone?

Figures

Blackadder, can I suggest you read Vesselin's post again and work out just who the figures quoted come from? Hint: it's not Vesselin.

Solutions

Negroponte is purveying a solution - Intel are touting a product. That is the difference.

I wish I could believe that Intel don't know the difference, and are therefore not wilfully scuppering a great visionary scheme. Unfortunately, I can't.

IP Rights Lifespan

JimC, remember Cliff isn't the author, only the performer. Performers are typically paid a lot more than authors/composers, who are the real creative people in the situation, and who are the ones who really deserve protection for themselves and for their families. (Though even that situation has got out of hand, IMHO.)

A couple of questions

(1) See the link I posted above. Additionally, Google "global warming dissent" and follow up some of the links. Look for facts, not opinions, then look for any rebuttals of those facts. Be sure to ignore ad-hominem attacks like the one linked to by Ms Putman above.

This, I think, is the best we non-scientists can do to inform ourselves.

(2) If climate change is indeed a natural process, that doesn't mean we can safely ignore it - tsunamis and volcanoes are natural processes too. It will, however, affect the approach we should take to the problem. If global warming is anthropogenic, then by all means let's cut carbon emissions etc., in the expectation that this will make a difference. If, however, it is a natural process, then not only will the foregoing be useless, but it will distract us from taking measures to protect ourselves from the effects of that process.

Sauce for the goose

Sorry, that's a debunking? Where does it address the paper's content?

Sauce for the goose

A documented POV which suggests that current concern about global warming is largely unjustified may be found at http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p686.htm .