Slashdot Mirror

how a prize named after Andrei Sakharov is gonna go over with Snowden's landlord, a veteran of the KGB that tormented Andrei Sakharov.

The same way that landlord can live with an avenue in Moscow name after Sakharov.
Or... you think that avenue is under risk of being tormented too?

You led me to believe you had stricter standards when you wrote: "since they cared and were informed, they would have checked where their chosen party's preference flows would have gone."

That comment was in reply to your friends and law professor not being apathetic. It wasn't the criteria of who should be allowed to vote; I was just enumerating a logical syllogism:

they voted above the line AND they weren't apathetic or ill-informed THEREFORE they must be happy with where their preferences went

Lamingtons? You get lamingtons at your polling station ... damn ... where do you live?

Not at my current one, actually. But at the one in Kentlyn, which I used to work at occasionally, they did. Good lamingtons, but probably not worth the trip.

The most obvious solution, and the one which most offends my philosophical sensibilities, is simply to exhaust the vote after it has reached its last stated preference.

Uh, did you mean least offends your sensibilities? I'm all for offending people, but I'd really rather know which alternatives you think are good at this point in the discussion :P

Or we allocate the remaining preferences based on a knowledge base using statistical analysis of what other voters who had the same early preferences selected further down on their ballots. ;)

I'm going to assume you know how I'd react to that. All hail our algorithmic overlords!

I thought it was all geese/geese. Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too, or did I simply confuse my animal analogy

I meant that this was another independent instance of foxes guarding henhouses - allowing incumbents to change the rules about how easy it is to vote them out of office results in incumbents who don't get voted out of office.

And yes, it probably should have been goose-run or something - I don't know the correct noun for a goose's farmyard domicile.

It affected Seagate 7200.11 drives, I know because one of my hard drives was affected by the bug. Seagate eventually started fixing people's drives for free after outsiders figured out it was a software bug that locked out access and it hit the tech news sites - prior to that their data recovery service was charging thousands of dollars to get people's data back. I can only imagine they realised people were going to ask pointed questions about how exactly their drives wound up with a "bug" that reliably held people's data to ransom for $$$, and that some of those people might be uniformed and have warrants.

"Can you inbreed your porkers, or would you need to have sperm for insemination brought in?"

You can inbreed. It is just like any animal, or plant. Breed the best of the best and eat the rest. Inbreeding problems don't appear by magic but are from recessive genes that become visible. Cull them. That is the problem with inbreeding where people aren't willing to cull the offspring. This is why inbreeding humans is generally frowned on. :)

"I've had meat from uncastrated boars, it's eatable but not good."

Then you had either the unfortunate result of the few breeds that have a problem with boar taint or it was miss-management. See this for more on taint. I've done a lot of research on it, we don't castrate and there is a growing movement in the industry to end castration. Basically have good genetics (most pigs don't have taint), feed correctly and manage correctly and there won't be taint.

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:sugarmtnfarm.com+taint

"7) You win. :-)" :) Bacon is the gateway meat. :)

I'm thinking that when we go into space, space, as in room, isn't going to be a big deal. We're going to make huge habitats. Lots of sunlight. Lots of solar energy. Pastures! Pig farmers in space! I would take some chickens too for a complete breakfast. :)

Haven't you heard?

"Only wimps use tape backup: real men just upload their important stuff on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;)" - Linus Torvalds[1]

1: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/linux.dev.kernel/2OEgUvDbNbo/bTk-VE1zrnYJ

You need Administrator access to replace magnify.exe. If you have Administrator access, you don't need to replace magnify.exe, you already can do anything you want directly. "It rather involved being on the other side of this airtight hatchway."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_English#Grammar

The construction has been around and in use longer than you've been alive. It's regional, but it's as correct as any other regionalism. It just depends on which side of this fence you fall on.

They've documented 2.
3 is right fucking here - http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/
4 is documented in their court battle http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/04/google-fights-nsl/
5 was documented
6 was documented http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/google-wins-floating-data-center-patent/17266
7 was documented http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-nsa-google-encryption-20130907,0,3652913.story

All are verifiable and you're full of shit.

The soil replacement substrate they are testing (arcillite) is highly absorbent and probably is pretreated with the fertilizers. I know that similar experiments (SVET, russian ) were done on the Russion Mir station (my father was leading the team that developed the soil substrate). They used naturally occurring mineral (zeolite) which is extremely good absorbent. You can pretreat it with a fertilizer mix and it will leach small amounts of nutrients and support plant growth for years. All you need to do is add water. The zeolite is also very light - the dry stones will actually float when placed in water, until they absorb enough of it to sink. The zeolites and I assume the arcillite substrate that NASA is testing can also serve as base for soil formation. On long missions you can mix them with waste and let it rot. Because of their absorbent properties the zeolites will actually reduce the smell that comes out of the mix. I would guess that in a confined box with no external supply of fresh air, this would be quite an advantage.

Here are some references for the substrate description and the experiment results.

The patent is here. FWIW the frequency seems to be 5.8 GHZ but havent read the rest of it (posting AC to not lose mods)

Metal Foil Tape.

He also acknowledged that Google complies with lawful requests... but with the caveat that each request is scrutinized.

(a) There has never been a question of "lawfulness"

I'm not sure what you mean there. I think FISA orders are constitutionally suspect, but barring a ruling otherwise, they're lawful. NSA wire-level snooping is clearly not legal, though the NSA's choice to distinguish between data acquisition and "collection" (meaning reading what they acquired) may provide them a crack to slip through.

(b) His broad-but-not-broad denial doesn't address how specific each request must be. We already know the FISA court was OK with a single request covering basically every customer at each telco

But Drummond said "no free for all", which is what that would be. The fact that other companies did engage in a free for all (and never denied it, BTW -- a point which seems lost on all-corps-are-NSA-allies conspiracy theorists), doesn't mean that Google did.

Also, the published transparency numbers make clear that isn't what's going on, even when stated in the broad ranges that are all that Google has been able to get permission to publish. For example, in 2012 there were between 0 and 999 NSLs, affecting between 1000 and 1999 user accounts. Taking the upper ends of those ranges, that means that each NSL affected ~2 accounts, on average. Assuming the worst case, one NSL for 1999 user accounts, that's still hardly free access, given that it comprises about 0.0002% of Google's user base.

Unless, of course, the numbers are fabrications which the government has somehow forced Google to publish.

I guess if you're bound and determined to find duplicity, you'll keep looking until you do.

Fool me once...

When did Google fool you? Google has always been upfront about government user data requests, that they existed and that Google had to honor them, and was the first to start publishing numbers. Google was also the company who negotiated permission to loosen the gag order to the extent that they can publish ranges for that as well, and the first company to file suit to get permission to publish full numbers. With everything except the suit, all of that was done on Google's own initiative, without any specific catalyst beyond Google employees and leaders being annoyed about having to comply with user data requests, and wanting people to know about it.

The problem here is that both narratives -- the one in which Google is a government stooge AND the one in which Google has acted to protect its users while grudgingly complying with the requirements of the law -- are compatible with the externally-observable facts. From the inside, I'll tell you that the stooge theory looks like a real stretcher, to the point of being basically impossible, but of course I could be lying. After all, Google does happen to be paying me as I type this.

Bah. Speaking of that, I'd better get back to doing what they pay me for.

Have a nice day. I'll be sure to ask the NSA agent sitting in the next cubicle to report back to me on how your evening went. Bob's helpful that way.

I wouldn't use git. Git requires you to always clone the entire repository.

Translation: I don't know how to use git.

The legal authority provided for this unconstitutional intrusion is 287 (a) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 233, 8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(3), which simply provides for warrantless searches of automobiles and other conveyances "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States," as authorized by regulations to be promulgated by the Attorney General. The Attorney General's regulation, 8 CFR 287.1, defines "reasonable distance" as "within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States."

However, the SCOTUS has not yet chimed in on the subject but its precedence suggests that the breadth of the searches and the distance involved may be unconstitutionally overbroad. Specifically, the border search exception applies only at international borders and their functional equivalent (such as international airports) (See Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 US 266, 273 (1973) ).

More recently courts have opined that the "extended border search" exception should apply only to those situations where the following facts are present: (1) "reasonable certainty" that the international boundary has been crossed by the suspect vehicle and (2) reasonable suspicion that the subject of the search was involved in criminal activity. (See US v. Guzman-Padilla, 573 F. 3d 865, 868 (2009) , See also US v. Nelson, Dist. Court, D. Arizona (2012)).

The legal authority provided for this unconstitutional intrusion is 287 (a) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 233, 8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(3), which simply provides for warrantless searches of automobiles and other conveyances "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States," as authorized by regulations to be promulgated by the Attorney General. The Attorney General's regulation, 8 CFR 287.1, defines "reasonable distance" as "within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States."

However, the SCOTUS has not yet chimed in on the subject but its precedence suggests that the breadth of the searches and the distance involved may be unconstitutionally overbroad. Specifically, the border search exception applies only at international borders and their functional equivalent (such as international airports) (See Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 US 266, 273 (1973) ).

More recently courts have opined that the "extended border search" exception should apply only to those situations where the following facts are present: (1) "reasonable certainty" that the international boundary has been crossed by the suspect vehicle and (2) reasonable suspicion that the subject of the search was involved in criminal activity. (See US v. Guzman-Padilla, 573 F. 3d 865, 868 (2009) , See also US v. Nelson, Dist. Court, D. Arizona (2012)).

The legal authority provided for this unconstitutional intrusion is 287 (a) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 66 Stat. 233, 8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(3), which simply provides for warrantless searches of automobiles and other conveyances "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States," as authorized by regulations to be promulgated by the Attorney General. The Attorney General's regulation, 8 CFR 287.1, defines "reasonable distance" as "within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States."

However, the SCOTUS has not yet chimed in on the subject but its precedence suggests that the breadth of the searches and the distance involved may be unconstitutionally overbroad. Specifically, the border search exception applies only at international borders and their functional equivalent (such as international airports) (See Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 US 266, 273 (1973) ).

More recently courts have opined that the "extended border search" exception should apply only to those situations where the following facts are present: (1) "reasonable certainty" that the international boundary has been crossed by the suspect vehicle and (2) reasonable suspicion that the subject of the search was involved in criminal activity. (See US v. Guzman-Padilla, 573 F. 3d 865, 868 (2009) , See also US v. Nelson, Dist. Court, D. Arizona (2012)).

The obvious "Use Version control/Git" is actually and improvement of your methods.
Here is an actual to the point answer to your question about software. A requirement of real time-sync was mention.

There is Synkron (has a scheduler) , OneSync (has real time sync), and Unison (uses rsync).

All are open source and free. Have fun.

Yes.. Note that that's an off-contract price and that it ships with a user-unlockable bootloader.

(I have no interest in a flame war. It's an answer to the question the parent asked, not an attempt to start an Android vs. iOS argument.)

I think it's more likely that the RDRAND thing has been an ongoing argument/flamewar for a long time. See this thread for an example.

BTW Linus is right. According to what we know about randomness, even if RDRAND is hacked then mixing it with other entropy can't hurt - at worst, it merely is a no-op and achieves nothing. However, even if RDRAND is backdoored, the NSA is not the worlds only adversary. Given that when mixed with other randomness it doesn't hurt, it's still better to use it against all the other adversaries out there than not.

Linus' point is, exclusive reliance on RDRAND would be bad, but the kernel doesn't/shouldn't do that.

GMO is hardly an obscure acronym. And a Google search gives the correct answer on the first non-sponsored hit. While I agree that slashdotters tend to play it fast and loose when it comes to using obscure acronyms, this is not one of those cases.

And what happens to helium as temperature changes? Its volume changes too. And what happens when its volume changes? Its density changes. And what happens when its density changes? You guessed it. The buoyancy of the blimp changes.

Did I say it was for instantaneous buoyancy change to climb or descend? No. You just made that assumption. It isn't used for that, as you note. It is, however, correct to state that the buoyancy is changed. I will grant you that it is close to 15 years since I got to fly in it, and spoke to the pilot; my memory was rusty. The primary goal is indeed to keep the envelope pressure constant.

However, that doesn't change the fact that "you couldn't possibly be wrong" is unnecessarily arrogant and belittling. I'm fairly certain I could've been a lot more wrong. And I'm fairly certain your own statements aren't perfect, either.

Also, a quote from a patent by Don Shaw, CEO of Advanced Tactics Inc., might be pertinent:

"The most widely used type of airship today is the blimp, which is a non-rigid airship having a generally flexible balloon envelope filled with a lighter-than-air gas such as helium. Inside the balloon envelope are one or more ballonets that can be filled with outside air. The filling of the ballonets compresses against and displaces the helium within the balloon envelope, and as the ballonets are filled (using outside air instead of the lighter helium), the overall weight of the blimp increases. Allowing the ballonets to deflate permits the helium to expand to fill more of the envelope, thus lightening the weight of the blimp."

lake front property in Death Valley.

That's not as far-fetched as you think. The lake is there it's just not usually very wet. During wet years people have floated canoes and kayaks there for a while.

If you cannot root your phone, you should return it and purchase a model you can install a custom ROM on.

If you care about your privacy, with respect to smartphone apps, you'll need root (at minimum) or a custom ROM.

At least with root, you can use DroidWall as a firewall to disallow those contact list reading apps from sending your data to the outside world.

If you're stuck with your [poor] choice of smartphone, perhaps App Ops can help.

You always have a choice!

Sexism isn't something that magically comes into existence when an observer becomes "offended."

That seems to be your opinion of it though. Because this isn't sexist except by the definition that some women are offended by it.

Maybe an ab-staring app would feel the same way to a lot of men. But a) there isn't one, which should tell you something

Hot men! Looks like men are ogled too! There's no sexism there; just biology.

It's saying that a woman's reasonable expectation of being able to peaceably attend a conference and not be confronted with leering strangers all the damn time (which is a reasonable expectation) is outweighed by the fun and frivolity of this oh-so-clever app idea and those clever lads who came up with it.

This app / joke has absolutely zero effect on anyone "leering" at strangers. None, aucun, ningun. This is a funny and clever app to a lot of people. That some don't find it so does not make it sexist. It would almost certainly get millions of downloads from highschool to university aged males and provide hours of entertainment for them. Which is probably why it made it to the event. Who would have thought a joke repeated a million times a day in all facets of life would suddenly become the worst thing in the world.

The whole incident is pretty directly saying to women that their little bit of dignity and respect in a businesses setting is less than a joke to the organizers.

No it does not. I will agree that sexism is a problem in many tech fields (and non-tech fields) but "men look at boobs" is not an example of that. Approximately 50% of the population is, quite literally, wired to look at boobs and to like them. Why are we stigmatizing sexuality? I thought we were supposed to be past the "shame on your sex drive" mantra of the dark ages.

It's quite simple. If they are really truly committed to securing our data, and regaining our trust, they could implement client-side PGP encryption, make it INTEGRAL to gmail (step EVERY user through setting up a pub/priv key pair when joining gmail, and MAKE them use it).

We should all email this Eric Grosse guy and demand client-side PGP plugins for their webmail service. Hell, with their army of programmers they can make a plugin work with gmail, hotmail, yahoo mail, Thunderbird, Outlook ... hell anything and everything.

There is no excuse, they can and must do this otherwise they're just playing lip service to security.

Let's see if they are willing to offer the level of security Lavabit did. If not, they're bullsh**ting us, pure and simple.

They can just fund this guy who ALREADY has a plugin for Chrome that is pretty slick for PGP within webmail [Mailvelope]:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mailvelope/kajibbejlbohfaggdiogboambcijhkke?hl=en

So it's wrong for a guy to talk about "taking a picture of yourself staring at tits" and to simulate masturbation in public, but it's perfectly all right for Miley Cyrus to do the same (and more!) on national television in front of millions of people? I guess they should have done it on MTV; then it would have been ok.

Get out of your echochamber and you'll see that nobody thinks what Miley Cyrus was appropriate or mature either. Here's an example.

To be fair the appropriation argument is centred on the racial implications of the incident not the gendered ones.

Get out of your echochamber and you'll see that nobody thinks what Miley Cyrus was appropriate or mature either. Here's an example.

To put this in some context, have a look at Jim Pettit's "spiral" graphs and consider that the grey zone in the NSIDC plots linked from the summary are still two standard deviations from the norm, and this year we're almost touching that (if that doesn't mean much to you now would be a good time to brush up on your statistics). So compared to last year we've gone from holy shit batshit insane outlier to just plain old holy shit.

https://sites.google.com/site/pettitclimategraphs/sea-ice-volume

To anyone about to complain that the number of samples is too short, 1) these measurements start when humanity invented the satellites to measure it - can't change that, and 2) we have deep Greenland ice cores for a pretty good idea of what was going on before.

As an engineer who lives practically next door to one of the hubs of so-called 'Silicon Beach', let me tell you that there is more publicity than business behind this concept. Don't get me wrong--there are legitimate reasons for considering the Los Angeles area a decent tech hub. A number of my favorite companies (Dreamhost!, and others) are located here, typically somewhere between the downtown area and Santa Monica. One of the biggest benefits is the thriving venture capital communities in the downtown and Pasadena areas, which is an understated-but-critical component to any truly substantial claim to 'Silicon [noun]'. (Strong venture capital communities also come with excellent startup support, commonly in some form of incubator.) You also get some great synergies between the educational institutions in the area (USC, UCLA, CalTech, Claremont colleges...), ongoing technology business efforts, and the parallel (not-as-mighty-as-it-once-was-but-still-substantial) aerospace community. We're fortunate to have a new (at least moderately) technically literate mayor, who's been pushing this 'Silicon Beach' idea quite a bit.

But that's the end of the good news. Here's why the TFA totally misses the mark, and (most likely unintentionally) buys into one of the latest political fads here in southern California.

First, the MySpace influence is strongly overrated. Businesses fail and shrink all the time, and--surprise--when they do, talented engineers will go off and do other things. The article paints a picture that implies that MySpace was this huge supergiant of a tech star, which went nova and whose subsequent remnants collected to spawn a whole new constellation of stars. In reality, MySpace was never really that big of a tech phenomenon or local influence. It's nowhere near as substantial as the unprecedented collapse of the southern California aerospace community (a PDF--page 11 is most interesting) after the Cold War. If you don't want to click the link, here's a summary: southern California employed 271,700 aerospace jobs in 1990; that number dropped by 57% by 2000, and continues to plummet (88,4000 in 2011). It really makes MySpace look like a drop of piss in a thunderstorm.

Second, it's easy to underestimate the fact that southern California--even just 'Los Angeles'--is a really, really big place. The Silicon Valley is ~46km long (I'm measuring from San Mateo to downtown San Jose--the width, of course, is mere miles), and Wikipedia puts the population between 3.5 and 4 million. By comparison, Los Angeles county alone is 76km (Santa Clarita to Long Beach) by 74km (Santa Monica to Claremont), with a population of 10 million souls. Why is that relevant? It shouldn't be a surprise that, in a really big area, there are going to be a few winning tech companies. Few people can even agree what 'Silicon Beach' constitutes. Is it supposed to be Playa Vista, with the new Fox technical studios (a la MySpace), Electronic Arts offices, and a few new offices in newly-remodeled air hangers? It is sort of the west side in general, where Google has recently consolidated a new office (in Venice Beach), and Activision-Blizzard is headquartered (Santa Monica)? Is it the general downtown vicinity, including North Hollywood and other light industrial areas, where established tech businesses have high-rise offices and new startups are renting out old movie studios for a steal of a rate? Is it the city of Los Angeles in general, with a new tech-friendly mayor, or the county, including tech-friendly Pasadena (CalTech and JPL, plus a lot of venture capital organizations)? Or does it also include Orange County, host of a whole slew of tech-sector ecosystems centered around U.C. Irvine (including the

It does, though it's configurable. https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/LinuxPasswordStorage has details.

I miss my old Casio cfx-200 scientific calculator watch. Darn thing lasted over 2 decades before it died. It was incredibly useful, and always available.

A smart watch shouldn't be so hard. Folks are just repeating the PDA debacle. Remember when no one could figure out PDAs, and some guy from Palm Computing at U.S. Robotics put it together? What do folks really want in a watch? What are we putting in there "just because"?

In China, too, the sheer pressure of population had forced an advance from ad hoc improvisation along predetermined Marxist-Maoist guidelines to a deliberate search for optimal administrative techniques, employing a form of cross-impact matrix analysis for which the Chinese language was peculiarly well adapted.

Well before the turn of the century a pattern had been systematized that proved immensely successful.

To every commune and small village was sent a deck of cards bearing ideograms relevant to impending changes, whether social or technical.

By shuffling and dealing the symbols into fresh combinations, fresh ideas could automatically be generated, and the people at a series of public meetings discussed the implications at length and appointed one of their number to summarize their views and report back to Peking. It was cheap and amazingly efficient.

John Brunner, Shockwave Rider, 1975

Either the other countries don't (then the NSA is the big bully), or the other countries are much better at not getting caught (then the NSA is the idiot).

Or other countries do, but not to the extent that the NSA does, so nobody's been as motivated as Edward Snowden to leak the information or look for ways in which those other countries' equivalents might have affected things (which amounts to "NSA is the big bully, some other countries have their own bullies but they're not as big as the NSA").

One person claims that the A5 encryption algorithm for GSM wasn't as strong as the Germans thought it should be; if true, it doesn't explicitly indicate which countries objected to the stronger encryption (it speaks of it being a French algorithm, but that doesn't ipso facto mean that the French spearheaded that).

Any law that the NSA violates puts them at risk in court

Doubly so when breaking the law requires the informed cooperation of private entities with incentives misaligned with the government's. This is not something the NSA can do in their datacenter using relaxed interpretation of the law, away from prying eyes.

They need to go to corporations and ask them to break the law. I'm sure the majority will require some kind of immunity then comply, but it's enough for a single firm to spill the beans and the whole chain of command that authorized the plan will go to jail.

I have yet to see anyone go to jail, even when we have video proof.

Sorry guys, Tor is designed to be used in all the ways we've spent years trying to fix broken internet protocols from doing, you really need to stop drooling over it. Its not actually a good solution. It is in fact an absolutely shitty solution to the problem, as its really a way to create a bunch of new ones.

If you have to hide, the Internet isn't for you.

It's a really good solution! It protects privacy, it's supported/maintained by really smart people who want to protect privacy, and (when using the most current version) gives the user strong privacy.

I just made a whole lot of unsubstantiated claims with no explanation, no supporting evidence, and with no background... just like you did. (I didn't call people names, though.)

Sheesh, gimme some Deep Woods Off! - The number of astroturfers on Slashdot is astounding.

Who cares who else uses Tor? Who cares whether it creates protocol problems? Who cares whether pedophiles or botnets use the system?

The important bit, the one that has value to *me*, is that it can hide my identity. It can hide the identity of people who are afraid of oppression, it can hide the identity of whistle blowers, it can hide the identity of people asking for help.

Stop astroturfing - you're not particularly good at it.

First of all, there was ONE "less than stellar" review. The Ars review was pretty pathetically trollish, I have no idea why. Check Google if you don't believe it. http://www.google.com/search?q=parallels+access+review

I used it in beta testing and its head and shoulders above other remote access tools. Their pricing is out to lunch, but it is an excellent tool.

Second, Parallels always has done stuff like this. The last version or two has been popping up ads. It's lazy of them and stupid but it's not really an "unrelated daemon".

Don't expect their support to give you instructions on how to uninstall it, just run something like CleanMyMac2 and move on.

Wow. You really need to raid the recycle pile at the garbage dump and get a faster computer...or several of them.

...or stop spamming this OLD comment that has appeared all over the place.

Here is rather lengthy article in Russian magazine 'Hacker' published in 2011 (google translation) Author describes his findings while working with Intel's MB manufactured in China:

The totality of the facts suggests an alarming rate and paranoid thoughts in the style spy detectives. These facts clearly talking about the following:

• In the new series server boards based on the Intel 5000 chipset have programs stitched in flash memory unit and executed by the BMC on the CPU, these programs work with hardware virtualization CPU.
• Images of flash memory with Intel's website do not contain the software modules, thus preventing me software modules were illegally stitched in motherboards at the production stage.
• Flash memory block contains the encrypted BMC program modules that are impossible to collect and fill in flash memory without the knowledge of the encryption keys, therefore, the one who put these illegal software modules, known encryption keys, that is, in fact had access to classified information.

I was kinda curious what he meant, myself, so I checked out this old-ish paper.
http://crypto.stanford.edu/~dabo/pubs/papers/privatebrowsing.pdf

I don't know if things have changed much, but their fairly thorough review seems to indicate firefox and chrome are pretty similar.
Looking at their table, one possible area of concern they listed (that Chrome might no longer have a problem with) is zoom level.
That could give information to a site that it is the same person, if they cared, although, that seems to be a pretty minor leak, given all the other information you could be revealing even if you hid your IP (a la panopticlick).
Looks like Chrome retains it from the non-private session, Firefox does not. The download list thing doesn't seem like a big deal. Depends on what you're using it for I guess.

Some leaks they fixed...
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=3493
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=21341

Open issues:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=867
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=34593 (I'm not a fan of this one either, but multiple private windows in Firefox do the same thing)

Back in 2010 Flash added support for private browsing in their plugin (that is, wrt local storage) in Firefox. I have no idea if/when that got added to Chrome.

I saw one complaint that disabled plugins (like Flash) in Chrome were reactivated in Incognito, but I don't know enough about the browser to check that.

Anyway, they seem pretty similar to me.

I was kinda curious what he meant, myself, so I checked out this old-ish paper.
http://crypto.stanford.edu/~dabo/pubs/papers/privatebrowsing.pdf

I don't know if things have changed much, but their fairly thorough review seems to indicate firefox and chrome are pretty similar.
Looking at their table, one possible area of concern they listed (that Chrome might no longer have a problem with) is zoom level.
That could give information to a site that it is the same person, if they cared, although, that seems to be a pretty minor leak, given all the other information you could be revealing even if you hid your IP (a la panopticlick).
Looks like Chrome retains it from the non-private session, Firefox does not. The download list thing doesn't seem like a big deal. Depends on what you're using it for I guess.

Some leaks they fixed...
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=3493
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=21341

Open issues:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=867
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=34593 (I'm not a fan of this one either, but multiple private windows in Firefox do the same thing)

Back in 2010 Flash added support for private browsing in their plugin (that is, wrt local storage) in Firefox. I have no idea if/when that got added to Chrome.

I saw one complaint that disabled plugins (like Flash) in Chrome were reactivated in Incognito, but I don't know enough about the browser to check that.

Anyway, they seem pretty similar to me.

I was kinda curious what he meant, myself, so I checked out this old-ish paper.
http://crypto.stanford.edu/~dabo/pubs/papers/privatebrowsing.pdf

I don't know if things have changed much, but their fairly thorough review seems to indicate firefox and chrome are pretty similar.
Looking at their table, one possible area of concern they listed (that Chrome might no longer have a problem with) is zoom level.
That could give information to a site that it is the same person, if they cared, although, that seems to be a pretty minor leak, given all the other information you could be revealing even if you hid your IP (a la panopticlick).
Looks like Chrome retains it from the non-private session, Firefox does not. The download list thing doesn't seem like a big deal. Depends on what you're using it for I guess.

Some leaks they fixed...
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=3493
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=21341

Open issues:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=867
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=34593 (I'm not a fan of this one either, but multiple private windows in Firefox do the same thing)

Back in 2010 Flash added support for private browsing in their plugin (that is, wrt local storage) in Firefox. I have no idea if/when that got added to Chrome.

I saw one complaint that disabled plugins (like Flash) in Chrome were reactivated in Incognito, but I don't know enough about the browser to check that.

Anyway, they seem pretty similar to me.

I was kinda curious what he meant, myself, so I checked out this old-ish paper.
http://crypto.stanford.edu/~dabo/pubs/papers/privatebrowsing.pdf

I don't know if things have changed much, but their fairly thorough review seems to indicate firefox and chrome are pretty similar.
Looking at their table, one possible area of concern they listed (that Chrome might no longer have a problem with) is zoom level.
That could give information to a site that it is the same person, if they cared, although, that seems to be a pretty minor leak, given all the other information you could be revealing even if you hid your IP (a la panopticlick).
Looks like Chrome retains it from the non-private session, Firefox does not. The download list thing doesn't seem like a big deal. Depends on what you're using it for I guess.

Some leaks they fixed...
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=3493
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=21341

Open issues:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=867
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=34593 (I'm not a fan of this one either, but multiple private windows in Firefox do the same thing)

Back in 2010 Flash added support for private browsing in their plugin (that is, wrt local storage) in Firefox. I have no idea if/when that got added to Chrome.

I saw one complaint that disabled plugins (like Flash) in Chrome were reactivated in Incognito, but I don't know enough about the browser to check that.

Anyway, they seem pretty similar to me.

That's actually not that paranoid. The FAA has been working on guidelines for unmanned aircraft for the last year. The things people call r/c aircraft when you do it for fun, drones when the government does it for tracking/blowing up people. So far the rules they've come up with have been pretty lax (no rules or limitation on flights under 400 feet as long as it's kept away from populated areas and regular aircraft). But some people are opposed to the current rules and want greater restrictions or outright bans. Fatalities from r/c aircraft are nothing new, but this is the first time I've seen one get this much press. I haven't seen anything unusual or notable about this particular death compared to previous r/c accidents, yet for some reason the story has gone national.

Huh?

Nokia's market cap four years ago was $40B. Twelve years ago, it was $60B.

$7B is chump change in comparison. MS has written down entire acquisitions as worthless after spending almost as much.

Nokia was not some edgy web design garage startup trying to get acquired by one of the big boys. They WERE one of the big boys. There is no other way to describe this situation as a complete and utter failure of Nokia's management to cope with changing market conditions since 2007 and how they impacted the way Nokia did business: the migration of large portions of the revenue in the sector to smartphones, the death of Symbian, the rise of iOS and Android and their respective ecosystems.

This failure is not relative. It is absolute. What's hard to see is what MS actually gets out of this. The public rationale is nonsense. I thought it was for the patent portfolio, but that's excluded. The theory that it's to stave off impending bankruptcy, a switch to Android, or both makes a bit of sense. It might also be just so MS can exercise more control over how the market perceives WIndows Phone. They can conglomerate the financials for Nokia and Windows Phone into a larger group and cherry pick the numbers they like for release (the way they do with Skype, Xbox, and the Entertainment division.) This might stop reporting on poor Nokia device sales from reflecting badly on Windows Phone. Nokia's bankruptcy wouldn't have looked good for Windows Phone, either.

https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:NOK&sa=X&ei=jgcqUuaRJ8WE4gShyoHQBQ&ved=0CCsQ2AE

But apparently Samsung doesn't know that being a thrice-conviced price fixer is bad PR.

Yeah, they're the good guys! Yay Samsung!

Really? Did I have just have to do THIS for you? Or are you that lazy? I don't mean to be a dick about this but come one.

I don't actually know, but I don't think most symbols are indexed. There are a few, but I don't think the others are present in the index, so searching on them isn't possible. They could be indexed, certainly, but I'm sure plenty of testing has been done, and it works better for more people the way it is.

Exorbitant fees, slow transfers, arrogant customer service, publicly funded bailouts for amounts that almost defy imagination, systematic fraud [google.com] reaching to the the highest levels of most governments of the world, few to no prosecutions of financial crime - the world of finance and banking it is a stagnated corrupt market

Everything else you list has nothing to do with bitcoin, but a problem for all currencies...

The missing information is that Google bought Motorola Mobility, the Motorola unit involved in this case, in 2011.

Google Checkout will be retired on November 20, 2013

For sellers of "digital goods" (whatever that means), Google Wallet will remain open. For sellers of physical goods, Google recommends Braintree. I'm under the impression that Google was shamed into closing Google Checkout for physical goods after one of Microsoft's "Scroogled" ad campaigns, which protested the fact that sellers could see buyers' postal codes.