I'd never hire that research team.

It's like the flat-Earthers, or those who believed we were the center of the universe. "We've done extensive investigation, and all evidence up until now says the Earth is flat and the center of the universe." Idiots. Of *course* by sifting through previous studies that have been criticised you're going to find a preponderance of "evidence" for exactly what's gone before. It's obvious. Was that ever in dispute? How about a study that throws everything out the window, including preconceptions, and actually starts doing trials and collating new empirical data?

Plural

The proper name is "Domino's Pizza". So, the plural possessive would be, "The Domino's Pizza's pizzas were eaten."

I'm still getting a kick out of any news story involving this "group".

As the last news story made clear, there is no membership list - and even among those who "belong" there is no standard of shared believe. (One person can say / believe something the opposite of another.) So, to try to claim that "the group Anonymous" thinks something is worth less than the paper the report is printed on (or the screen it's displayed on). At best, some people claiming to belong to this group are making this claim. So, every time I see an article about this group now - with the slant that "this is what Anonymous believes / is doing", I just shake my head and laugh. Even if there WERE a "membership" list of some kind, and a group of people who all belonged and felt the same way - the fact that they *are* anonymous (the word, not the group) makes it impossible to give any credence to anything in the real world. Mainly because there's no way of knowing who it is saying something and, therefore, no way of responding to them in any way. From where I sit, none of this means anything.

"I have had the opportunity to speak to Anonymous." ???

Really? And how did you manage that? When it's been made explicitly clear that there's no membership list and no agreement amongst "them" as to who qualifies to be one of these people and who doesn't?

Did you head down to the local pub and happen upon somebody in a Guy Fawkes mask, ask them if they belonged to this group, got an affirmative answer and then started asking questions hoping that things were on the level?

If there's no possible way of defining anything here - or going to a location or group where there's agreement - then how can it possibly be claimed that you managed to meet anybody who could objectively be said to be a part of this group?

Production does not equal distribution.

I fail to understand the specific argument that in order to decrease sexual abuse we should be increasing the *production* of pornography. Surely we don't need to *produce* any more at all - unless you want to consider all of those people who make a living out of that job. Purely in terms of those people "happily" viewing said material and thereby getting a "fix" with the side effect of preventing them from leaving their houses and doing something wrong in person, viewing of pornography in no way equates to the production of pornography. Load up all the pictures, movies, and other media already currently in existence and no single person could ever get through all of that without dying of old age well before exhausting the supply.

So, at best, if I'm going to buy into this whole argument (which is a big stretch, and I'm not saying that at all), it would not be one that would entail new production (unless there was some niche market for the same old things but in current social and technological contexts) but better availability, distribution, and acceptance of *already* produced material. Therefore, the immediate question / argument involving the harm of people in new production is specious.

"Internet Penetration"?

Why am I the first person to mention the oddly appropriate pun-like nature of this phrase? Not only in the article, but it's continued use in comments. Is it just too obvious? (That hasn't stopped others in the past though.) Would it induce too much groaning (uh oh) to rephrase - and explicitly point out the terminology confusion - by saying that the Internet penetration of Internet penetration has increased over the past few years?

"disruptively easier"?

I never realized that you could be disrupted by something being easy.

Not really cleaned...

Just a minor point, but computers can't get reinfected by files remaining on a computer after they've been cleaned. If that's happening, then they weren't properly cleaned in the first place. The definition of proper cleaning is to remove everything so that there's no trace left behind.

The article might better have said that reinfection can occur when previous cleaning methods were used - those that were incomplete as they hadn't yet identified the new discovery.

@Tony Barnes

"they are overpriced. This cannot be debated"

I've owned a 505 for almost a year now and consider it to be one of the best purchases I've ever made. If I lost it, I'd spend twice as much on another one if I had to. (Although, luckily, I wouldn't have to.) I don't consider it to be overpriced at all for what it does.

If you don't think it's worth the money, then don't buy it.

Player 3 is free.

And it now lets you create and edit VMs. It lacks some of the bells and Whistles of Workstation, but the VMs you can use with it are just the same. So, comparing free to free - how does that change the comparison to Virtual Box?

I'm glad I went with Sony.

The device is much more elegant looking (it doesn't have that truly awful keyboard that would prevent me from being proud of showing my Kindle to anyone - although that's just my personal opinion), and Sony isn't playing all of these Big Brother games like Amazon is.

Email should be text only anyway.

I hate looking at anything other than text in an email message. Email, properly, shouldn't have fonts, graphics, or video embedded. It should just be a message and nothing else. Something else, in the Outlook world, would be a Word document. That's not email. And don't even get me started on Outlook's horrendous bottom-quoting...

I guess I'm in the minority.

I'll add my voice to the "few" number of people in this thread who've posted that they actually like Blu-ray.

@The Avangelist: "Your eyes cannot tell the difference between a DVD and a Blu-Ray disc, anyone who says they can is lying to save face because they think they're stupid for not being able to tell the difference."

That is a deliberatively provocative statement, and quite false. I can quite easily tell the difference on my TV. From DVD to Blu-ray is as different as VHS to DVD. Especially if you have a Blu-ray movie that's actually been produced correctly - as opposed to many that are just whipped off in the format but without any particular attention to doing a good job with it. This is not me just being "stupid" but an objective and empirical statement. There are movies that I've watched in both DVD and Blu-ray. With the Blu-ray I've been able to read text on signs in the background that cannot be read on the DVD version.

I only buy Blu-ray at this point, and the movies I currently own on DVD that I consider to be the best I am slowly converting over. (Others I will just keep on DVD.)