who initially thought of the artist instead of the telephone company?

why this piece of PR-made-to-look-like-a-news-item actually ended up on a news site? Seriously?

The question of course is how large this search space is in comparison to the samples tried from it, to determine whether it really is amazing or not.

"Matt has gone so far as to post this on Twitter."

Just, *wow*.

First off, where did the news-item say this was a bad thing? Don't play victim over nothing.

Secondly, of course you're right. Anyone who argues against sovereignty of a country's government over its own country is not thinking straight.
If one thinks censorship is bad, then of course the Chinese (government) is bad as well, but this may be too quick to judge. But let's not forget the other guilty party in this case, one which can more easily be judged: Google, rooted in a free (uncensored, 'not evil') society model, whom knowingly entered a censored market. Playing along with your government, only to later on -hypocritically- state they don't want do censorship. After failing to get local web search dominance and cyber attacks from Chinese.
The latter one most likely due to your government. Which is inexcusable, no matter how you'd put it, but sadly also unprovable.

I'd reduce your statement to 'what market is there for a company selling decade-old games?'. I expect almost none, and definitely not enough for a company to survive on.

depart from the expected distribution at 90% confidence. In other words, the observed vote pattern for Rawl could be expected to occur only about 10% of the time by chance.

Just no. There's 10 percent chance of a type 1 error, assuming the null hypothesis (no cheating) is true.

Actually, The Netherlands really do have one of the highest percentage of population who use internet on a daily basis.

are they pursuing the only thing sure to work, which is drilling at a tactically chosen spot of the same oil field to relieve or nullify the pressure at the leak?

Or are they really going through all options sequentially, with the least costly and fastest solutions first.

My thoughts exactly. I skimmed through the article but didn't find a clear answer (also, the formulas in there just seem to pop up from nowhere, but I'm no physicist and hope the guys from nature do get it...)

I am in (combinatorial) scientific computing and high performance computing, and use *NIX environments almost exclusively (ranging from proprietary Unix to different kinds of Linux flavours).
This goes for universities as well as businesses (ranging from software consultancy to companies like Shell). This choice is due to performance as well as productivity. These statements come from my own experiences.

Besides, if you want your students to learn something new, it makes sense to pick something else than Windows.

They shot down a nuclear cruise missle. I saw it live on my tv yesterday on this show called '24'.

This is why slashdot rocks :)

How does being bigger than Microsoft entail that Google was 'that big'? To my knowledge, Google was barely at 15% market share and not getting any bigger, *in China*. Fifteen is way smaller than basically anywhere. Leaving then, especially after the hacking, is a sound *business* move; as your quoted comment also argues.

And, again, leaving after knowingly entering a censored market does not give Google any higher moral ground than e.g. Microsoft, or even Cisco, as far as I'm concerned.

They weren't forced to beat their child, and made the conscious choice of starting to beat their child. Because everyone else was doing so and making money with it. While yelling "do no evil", of all things. Also, Google would have never withdrawn if it had managed to take a large enough market share there. They weren't that big, had to comply with a nagging government and had to put up with a hacker's attack in the back. Not worthwhile, so withdrawn. Just business; not morals.