Let me be the first to congratulate you on your CO2 footprint. 1600 miles? One way? Wheeee!

First! pwoned!!!

So we can assume the scoundrels artificially inflating their CPM display ads wasn't gas buddy?

This is the reason alladvantage.com paid internet surfing never survived.

Yes, geo-located gas price mash-up is a killer opportunity! But did I read that you brought a laptop with a cellular modem? Wouldn't an iPhone or Opera on a Windows Mobile phone have done the trick...?

At least some of the gasbuddy.com affiliated sites have a map with little pop-ups that show the reported price of gas at that location. For Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN & surrounding areas, it's at http://www.twincitiesgasprices.com/map_gas_prices.aspx

1600 mile cruise @6mpg.

I'm speechless.....

Who did the "report from Moscow" come from, Bob?

For your entertainment: 1600 miles / 6 miles per gallon = 266 gallons in total spent. In liters that that's (266 x 3.78) = 1005 liters of fuel. If it's regular gas, that costs about 1.55 euros per liter (5.86 dollars per gallon!) in The Netherlands at the moment. So 1557 liters of fuel in total.

At current exchange rates the same trek through Europe would roughly cost you over 2287 dollars - one way? For obvious reasons people don't drive Winnebagos over here.

1600 mile cruise @ 6mpg - Not cool
I would think you would want some part of the planet left for the kids.

Your definition of cyber-terrorism is one for cyber-attacks in general, it misses this essential quality of terrorism: the intention to instill terror (its called terrorism for a reason!)

And yes, the press in general also often gets this wrong .. but well, they use 'terrorism' extremely inflationary anyway.

"what they did wasn't terrorism. No systems or networks were destroyed, no bank accounts plundered, no command and control systems crushed."

Your items one and three would qualify as terrorism, item two is just theft.

1600miles @6mpg is cheaper than flying 4 people, and you don't need a hotel when you get there.

It's also many times more comfortable, allows stops on the way, and doesn't take much longer.

People who own Winnebagos and airplanes should NOT be allowed to complain about gas prices!!

Well

There are lots of opportunities to provide lots of information, the trick is monetizing the whole thing. Which is usually a black art. The benevolent free services are a thing of the past.

How much will IPV6 change the security outlook for the internet?

By the way, why not put NERDTV on YouTube and just get it over with. It doesn't have to be perfect you know.

Bob, I think the idea that Kahn and Cerf "deliberately chose not to" add security to TCP/IP is an unhistorical projection of our current security-consciousness onto a time when security-consciousness made no sense.

The thing is, _nobody_ was "serious" about network/computer security back then, not programmers, not administrators, not users. There was no need. The net world was a different place -- much smaller, much better-controlled. It was mostly a _research_ network. I bet Cerf and Kahn would have giggled for hours if someone had suggested that a billion people would use the Arpanet to communicate, publish, buy, bank. Commerce was an abuse of the network back then, by universal consent.

It wasn't just TCP/IP that had no security, either. Go look back at the RFCs for all the original network application protocols: telnet, ftp, finger, smtp, and so on --- all of them had Rot-13-grade security, to put it charitably. Authentication was _always_ sent in the clear, and passwords were usually hard-limited to 8 characters. This is not an accident --- it bespeaks a generally-held world view that was shared by Kahn and Cerf. It just hadn't occurred to anyone that military-grade encryption and authentication had anything to do with networking. There didn't even exist any public knowledge about professional cryptology back then for them to model such thoughts on.

It was just a simpler time. This is not to take away anything from Kahn and Cerf, whose contributions are of course mind-boggling. But to attribute modern security-consciousness to them is to credit them with clairvoyance. Their reputations are secure even without that kind of mystification.

Coming late to the party here, but:

It was interesting to read about that "temporary" ad scam, since it is done far more thorough by a major publisher (yes, they come from print) that hails themselves as the only relevant source of IT-related news and knowledge in our proud but small language (this is probably true, thus they should know better twice).

They reload every page without any discrimination, and they do it often. I'm a rather fast reader, but I do very seldom reach the end of an article before it is reloaded, interrupting my reading of it. It doesn't help that the pages are overloaded with flash ads and slow as hell. Result: I avoid them like the plague, and so do many others.

By the way: they're owned by and branded as an equally dominant U.S. publisher. I wonder if their Corp. HQ has a clue to what's going on in their little subsidiary located in that cosy bay back up among all those pirates...