Why fortunately? Is this a Microsoft press release? Windows tablets are crap. I've played with one recently, and Windows without a keyboard is indescribably awkward: all use cases I was trying (starting notepad, type something in it, browsing apps, looking for the configuration screens/system info) go forward in snail speed. That's less than turtle. Even the salesperson standing next to me had nothing to say in defense.

Mod parent up. Still I think the judge an idiot for ruling like he did. The reason for not having a lawyer and just paying whatever fine would apparently be the blogger was scared of any extra costs the lawyer would have brought in face of the non-certainty of winning (which still might have been more expensive than what she paid now if the procedure was lengthier but in the end still not in her favour). The restaurant owner was trolling, there's just no better word for it. By awarding even this tiny win the judge is inviting his whole judicial system to similar crap (and threats to ordinary citizens). On the other hand, wasn't there a public lawyer she might have used?

LXDE. Then perhaps GNOME 2, tty/bash, BASIC.

I wonder if this gets awarded 5 mod points too.

A badly written rant containing ill-informed opinions, even when accounting for the author being no `geek', as she puts it.

The problem is not the `glorification' of hackers (seriously?). The problem is that laws remain outdated to cope with this digital age. The problem is that governments rely on badly protected and badly regulated technologies.

The problem is not having enough hackers.

It does seem a bit odd to sue in Texas. Did they file a case in Australia as well?

How does the scheme prevent ``play this game or I'll kill your family''?

to get caught, yes.

Yep, exactly what parent says. I don't see any problem (what more, I have not encountered problems) with just reserving all rights for yourself (copyright by you, as is (should be) possible with any respectable university), and then distributing it yourself, over the internet. Free and open access, and nobody can legally run off with it or put it on shady websites.

What the hell kind of news are you watching then?

give some thought to data security as well please. If the research done is sensitive, don't use clouds.

On the other hand, costs of self-hosting are indeed underestimated very quickly, which is not a good thing when budget is low.

Also, while manycore machines seem cost-effective, look at the solutions you are using for computation; it is hard to press a 48-core machine to peak performance, much harder than driving more standard distributed-memory supercomputers. But this depends on your application.

Buying time on an existing cluster (local university, or a dedicated HPC company) seems the surest way, and also reasonably secure when done at a trusted institute or company.

Not even with a `left-wing' government dude. I can imagine only one left-mid party who would maybe support it, but both green parties would never support the idea as it is presented in this slashdot article due to privacy.

The article linked to speaks of 'covert actions' to bring about 'democratic reforms', and the slashdot article speaks of a 'social worker'. Site's losing trustworthiness quickly this way. Sad.

this is inane. The point is the attacks not only come from the LOIC network, but other bot networks can also be employed. Therefore it is not possible to differentiate if the computer involved with an attack is a willing participant or a worm victim. So unless the authorities act on every IP-address involved and pay those IP users a personal visit, and IF these people indeed have used LOIC and managed not did not wipe it, only then they have a problem with their non/relative-anonymity. Every one of the conditionals is very questionable to ever occur.

`Anonymous' as the group is called is called such only to indicate that this group does not exist in the sense of identity or organisation. It is plain stupid to speak of anonymous as a group of this or that. One can laugh about it if the mass media doesn't get it, but it's said when universities think something like this is noteworthy. If anon bombs an address with pizza deliveries, it has never been implied that the people who call the pizza delivery companies did so using a untraceable telephone connections. Please.

Microsoft will not be arguing software patents are ludicrous before the supreme court; it will be arguing the patents are not valid. Translated: the rules apply, just not to Microsoft.

Let them get bitten in the ass by their own supported rules, and hope it happens enough times so they'll reconsider their stance.