It's hard to believe so many people consider the use of shortened URLs a security measure. It is not, and was never intended to be. A URL is exposed, by definition, whether long or shortened. A shortened URL is a convenience, not a security tool. Some people misuse base64 encoding for "security" as well, but it does not mean we should get rid of base64 encoding.
This is enough for me to stop buying Lexmark printers. I've never used 3rd party ink, but I do not like the idea of Lexmark abusing patent law, especially to extort money from its customers. A company might be better off to value its customers enough to offer them what they want. This seems to be yet another poor decision made in a clueless boardroom.
It would be nice if users would file a legal complaint on YouTube (there is a form, under "...More", "Report") because someone is abusing the DMCA to hide content users are entitled to see. If nobody complains, YouTube has little incentive to stop abusive DMCA practices.
That is not a study. It is an opinion article. It's stupid to believe that there are that many significant errors in production code (with the possible exception of phone apps).
The defects referred to in David Soergel's reference ("Code Complete", written more than 10 years ago) include things such as misaligned output, insufficient error trapping, invalid data input filters, user interface problems, and many other errors that do not cause "wrong answers".
Furthermore, debugging is a major process in software development. There are many, many errors that appear in any non-trivial software project as it is being written and tested. Many of these prevent the software from running in the first place. With testing, these are largely eliminated, particularly those that can significantly affect results.
For example, in a scientific application with a limited number of users, it may be completely acceptable for the application to crash on invalid input. It may take more programming time than it's worth to add elegant error handling. This is a "software defect", yet it has zero effect on the results. Many of the defects referred to in "Code Complete" are of this nature.
In addition, the statics quoted above (and all over the internet), are mere guesswork. The article even states "The factors going into the above estimates are rank speculation, and the conclusion varies widely depending on the guessed values," and this in the "rigorous analysis"!
In my opinion, this does not merit appearance in Tech Dirt, and certainly lowers the average quality of this site. It's a typical scare-hype article, all too common today.
In the US, the USPTO is happy to award a patent for almost any idea, concept, or thought, no matter how trivial and regardless of prior art. After all, a patent WAS issued for the generic idea of crowdfunding.
If GM owns the software in my car, that means they can permanently disable my car whenever they get the urge. They can just remove the software they own from the car I own, and my car becomes a large brick.
Need a boost in auto sales? Kill 10,000 cars and put some demand into the market. Legally.
Considering their precipitous stock price decline, it seems like some upstanding citizen would file a class action lawsuit against Rightscorp for neglecting to notify shareholders of known risks and adverse business conditions.
"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. I feel certain that some large company will patent some obvious thing related to interface, object orientation, algorithm, application extension or other crucial technique. If we assume this company has no need of any of our patents then the have a 17-year right to take as much of our profits as they want." Bill Gates, 1991
The NSA is out of control. If the President ordered them today to stop surveillance on U.S. citizens, Germany, France, the U.K., Australia, and Japan, would they? I think not. The NSA is above (or below) the law and the U.S. Constitution.
"One of our last remaining dominant American exports is our creativity."
This may be, but it's not because people in the U.S. are any more creative than people elsewhere in the world. It's because the U.S. is losing its other exports. As the tech playing field levels, the U.S. can compete or it can lose.