As we saw with prohibition, it's really hard to take a popular drug that is legal and make it illegal. Cigarettes are way worse than weed, but it would be extremely difficult and probably ineffective to ban them. Weed on the other hand is already illegal, so the government can keep it illegal if they want to.

People have to be somewhat computer savy to use the work-arounds mentioned here. While people who read slashdot could easily circumvent these DNS restrictions, the typical Internet user would struggle to do so. This kind of law would put a dent in the piracy, but it would not stop it. Any computer-savy pirate could circumvent the laws, but not everyone could.

It's not like Google came around with a potential competitor and Facebook banned exporting friends out of fear. Facebook has always banned any application that allowed you to export friends. Maybe they do it out of fear, but they wrote it into their TOS. Banning the Google application is the rule, not the exception.

I find the comparison offensive. There is a strong difference between saving lives from a genocide and releasing classified intelligence.

My friend's house burned down a few days ago because of this fire.

Not true. I got an email at 5:30am this morning informing me of the security breach.

Take a look at this article which explains why you want to use a slow hashing algorithm (such as doing md5 1000 times): http://chargen.matasano.com/chargen/2007/9/7/enough-with-the-rainbow-tables-what-you-need-to-know-about-s.html

It doesn't make it any stronger, but it means that it takes longer to brute-force (since if it takes you longer to hash the password, it will take the person brute-forcing it that much longer to hash each potential password).

Just make the hashing algorithm slower. For example, let's say you use md5 to hash the passwords. Hash the password 1000 times with md5 instead of just once. This will increase the time it takes to crack the passwords by a factor of around 1000.

We have one of the best university systems in the world. We train many Americans and foreign students in numerous fields. So why, when those same foreign students want to stay in America to help our economy, we kick them out. By restricting highly-skilled foreign workers from working in America, we are giving up the opportunity for them to help our own economy and start new businesses that will create many jobs.

I don't understand why this isn't more clear cut. He broke the law by releasing classified documents. If someone who worked for your billion dollar company suddenly decided that he was pissed off and would open-source all of your proprietary code, people shouldn't suddenly say that he is innocent. Now he's also in the military and the laws in the military are way more strict about doing anything harmful to your country. He broke the law and now he will be punished for it. Prosecuting Assange is a much less clear-cut case because it is unclear whether or not he broke a US law.

When comparing salary, the median salary is often more representative than the mean. This is because the mean will get skewed by the people who make a ton of money (such as wall street bankers), whereas the median will describe a typical salary.

Anyone else think this has anything to do with Apple's Lala acquisition? Lala was about storing your music in the cloud. When Apple acquired it, Apple promptly shut down Lala. Maybe this data center will help users store their music in the cloud.