Well they are not one in the same sure, but The Swedish Pirate Party also hosts The Pirate Bay itself so you can't completely separate them from each other either. The Pirate Party Becomes The Pirate Bay’s New Host

Obviously both sites and the Swedish Pirate Party are betting (pretty hard) on the election next month which a successful outcome would as previously posted put TPB and perhaps now wikileaks inside the Swedish Parliament.

Thanks for sharing I just grabbed the app from the Android store and it is pretty cool! :)

Now how to use what the phone can do to either scan for thermal or some other bio-signature and this thing is basically complete!

He has also seemingly updated the paper after receiving some feedback. This is the link to a version dated today: http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Vinay_Deolalikar/Papers/pnp_updated.pdf

Whoa its from the future! (article is dated June 26th)

That's some seriously scary stuff from these guys. Has EFF or any of the other groups issued a response to either of these pieces yet?

soundexchange -> broadcast (internet radio)
ascap -> performance

typed in too much of a hurry sorry. This stuff just really pisses me off about these kind of groups.

They probably are relying on or hoping to attain the same standing RIAA has gotten through SoundExchange to collect broadcast royalties even from non-members.

So there is clearly precedent that suggests ownership and membership are not sufficient concerns to these types of organizations. Unless it is their material or members that is!

So in this case they are either seeking statute authority to collect song composing royalties for members AND non-members, or they intend to behave that way anyway and defend it on the premise that the copyright office already delineated similar powers to SoundExchange and that since ASCAP is a similar group to SoundExchange they are entitled to a similar wide scope of authority (performance royalties -> SoundExchange vs composing royalties -> ASCAP)

I'd really like to see this blow up in their face and get both groups rights to even try this sort of thing revoked, but there are too many MAFIAA members in DoJ (and probably other parts of gov't) now and they have the administration's support (much to my dismay as I do generally otherwise support the administration). So this could get ugly and have bad consequences quickly.

I really hope the copyleft groups start gathering funds and resources in a way to respond to this head on. I'd support it.

About RIAA lawyers at DoJ:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/

About RIAA/SoundExchange:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/4/24/141326/870
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtml

Numerous researchers in synthetic biology have been trying to do exactly that.

Here is an example Open Wetware BioBricks

Synthetic biology has two paradigms the first is the top down approach which deals with gene knock outs to look for minimal sets necessary for life that can then be tailored to suit specific needs/tasks. The other approach is the bottom up which have inspiration from the Miller-Urey experiments. They are trying to spontaneously generate a new biological system from scratch. Some researchers in this camp trying to create synthetic cellular components in hopes of putting all the synthetic parts together to create a functioning cell such as synthetic Golgi bodies

There has been some promising results from both approaches. It is a pretty exciting time in Biology.

I've seen many many posts talking about "you need logic but not really mathematics"
I'm not really sure what the confusion is about why mathematics would be separate from logic in any respect.

Symbolic Logic is Mathematical Logic. Principia Mathematica clearly makes the case that math and logic are the same thing. As did many works around the same time and since. So how can you need logic for computer science or programming yet somehow not mathematics it just doesn't make any sense to me.

As Dvorkin put it, it isn't as simple as always use classical methods or always use Bayesian.

I also think sometimes whenever possible you need to use both to help give you more evidence. Particularly if the results are somehow unclear. If they both give similar or approximately the same results that might be pretty good evidence that the final result is reasonable.

If you get wildly different conclusions then you need to consider why you got different answers and maybe it is because one method better models the situation than the other (and there are some tools to help figure that out in some cases) or perhaps the irregularity is identifying a problem with the data collected that would have gone undetected if you only used one or the other (and there are tools for when this happens too in some cases).

Very careful model building, very careful experimental design, very careful analysis, and very careful model adjustment isn't a guarantee that the results will be correct with any methods, but it is the best that can be done and is critical to always follow.