Ah, therein lies the issue. Language is not restricted to geographical area.

I completely get the premis, and, as a developer, completely dismiss it. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

This, this right here reveals a valid point. Region locks, limited releases, and so forth are supposed to be about geographical areas, not the language. If "Rocky 30" gets released in the US only, there is nothing restricting a Chinese speaking American from watching the film. Claiming that one is "making content available" to an audience who hasn't been permitted yet is a load of horse shit. However, since by some countries' laws content might be restricted, I assume the derivative works could potentially inherit those restrictions. I think it's obvious that distinction isn't clear. Seems a better practice to work with the site in helping them understand where the content is supposed to be available. There is nothing stopping the content provider from getting paid for a film. However, I do completely understand how this mindset doesn't hold up for books, and rightfully so. With books, making the translation of the book availble would make the core value of the product worthless. The core value of a DVD is not in the text.

Eh, fark. This is mine. Stupid login.

"Very few acquire sufficient mastership of the physics to make a dent. And even if you do, you'll be in a rat race against other geniuses. New discoveries spur new ideas, but discoveries are published worldwide and ideas are also a dime a dozen as well. Even if you have the gift to derive a really good and worthwhile idea from a given recent discovery, you can be sure that at least two of your competitors around the world will have thought of it, and then it comes down to who is fastest and who can deliver the most generally useful implementation or variant of the idea." Sounds exactly like programming actually :-). Seriously, though, thank you for your insight.

I've been considering taking up study in this field. As a software developer I can see benefits for both sides. I'm curious if we could develop a suitable runtime environment to express the code rather than just "build and lets see".

For those of us who have had the unfortunate pleasure of being arrested, think about it. You had to call a relative, or look in a phone book for some advertisement of a lawyer. While I doubt they'll be getting many of these machines, one usually has at least 24 hours of free time in jail. Why not give that time to do at least /some/ due diligence in picking one's council. Bravo Canada.

All of them specifically to convert IE only sites to support at least Firefox, Chrome, & IE. A few of them even specifically listed Safari. We may not have seen the cusp of the wave, but companies have definitely heard the message loud and clear, and are responding appropriately.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, nor do I typically give a damn about politics. For the most part, I like Mr. Obama. However, combining this with the changing gun laws just sounds down right marshal law-like.

Interesting parts as well state infected servers can redirect to one another. Seeing this is partly a WordPress exploit, I wonder if an email link is even necessary. Visit 1 exploited in-net box and it might be able to get you where it needs.

Whether key or ip are used here is missing the kind of whitelisting this malware is using. When the package exploits a server, it alters pages/links to redirect each unique visitor to a dynamically generated temp folder on itself which contains the phishing code, and afterwards is deleted. The phishing code could obviously get more selective, and will contain a destination either via redirect or transmission, but returning to the same url gets you nowhere. Have the link/page exploited float around as well and you have a "dynamic" whitelist which filters favoring the browsing public, not link-minded researchers.

This guy could have studied his opponents, he could suddenly understand the game in a new way, or the competitors in the tournament could share some fundamental link to a decision tree he's found. I'll admit this is unlikely, but one can attribute such vast differences to not only cheating or genius, but also competitive stagnation.

I read nothing of problems presented which require both types of thinking. Common problems involving both like seating arrangements for a wedding or which family member to ask to borrow money could be used for this. In the test discussed in the article the participant is going to catch on to the pattern after a few questions and instinctively switch their thinking to an optimal mode. In my opinion the resulting brain activity they're reading isn't empathy/analytics, it's bound and unbound thought. Empathy isn't imagination. It's the experiences, memories, and emotions of oneself and everyone they've known recalled abstractly. Asking someone to answer "social question" without personal context not only unbounds the process, but simultaneously removes analysis. This is caused by a) the need for one to imagine the contextual characters necessary to fill in the gaps and b) the inherent throw-away nature of those virtual characters. It all sits in short-term memory.

Real empathy requires actual people to empathize with because it involves more than words. It includes body language and so many other factors. All that's been invoked here is structured imagination, and these questions would inherently exclude analytic thought in that test characters must be taken as-is. On the other side, analytic thought requires mental sandboxes. Analyzing a hypothetical question presents it's own sandbox which excludes imagination, and relies solely on ones training & short term memory. The fact that the subjects know they are being tested at all seems to be the originating flaw.

No information is gathered, rather the lifetime / distance of the qubit is extended. Since this caused the frequency of detection to change, I'm going to make an educated guess that the correction signal causes interference and/or destruction of a third channel which could be monitored for manipulation.

Blasphemy (as defined by the God of Moses, Jehovah) is defined as speaking against Him (i.e: Actively working against his active force / holy spirit.) Committing blasphemy requires belief in the God one blasphemes against. Calling one's God a liar is probably the best example of blasphemy I can give. In most Biblically based religions it is the only unforgivable sin. Note this is not because the blasphemer doesn't want to follow God, nor is it because he mistakenly believes in a false god. It is instead that he is actively attempting to dissuade others from or misinform them about God while knowing the truth. It can't be done on accident, and it can't be committed by a non-believer.