Agree - the "paranoiac" option of "Whatever + VPN" is missing.

I use WEP just to make freeloaders and iPhones go away. However, in order to get to anything once you are past the WEP, you actually have to set-up a VPN. So the real security and real encryption comes courtesy of AES256 OpenVPN, not any of the WiFi protos.

Yeah, spread as much as possible of the infectious material into an aerosol in the air... Great idea. The last thing you need to do to a potentially infectious creature is to shoot it.

China is not using the US 3-drug cocktail which will damage heart and other organs. It uses barbiturates which kill the prisoner as fast as the 3-drug and leave the organs nicely suited for harvesting. Further to this, it is a "clean brain death" so you can put the living vegetable on a ventilator for transport purposes if you want to. The only damaged organ may be liver and even that will happen if the vegetable is kept alive too long. If the liver is collected right away it will be in OK shape for transplant as well.

As far as HIV, HEP C, etc these are all tested in advance as well as the exact tissue matching.

In any case, my thoughts on the article are slightly different: "Only three? In China? You gotta be kidding"

I have seen 18 month non-compete for lowly lab grunts in private R&D companies and trainee IPR people with circa 45K pound per annum. Anything but exec.

It is legal to own. That ownership is not transferrable. It is not legal to sell, rent, loan or broadcast unless the local law explicitly grants some rights along those lines (only Germany IIRC).

Read the EULA.

Poor albert... Or lucky albert. Depends on the perspective...

http://www.apnic.net/publications/news/2011/final-8

They are not allocating ipv4 to anyone but new ISPs and for IPv6 transition purposes. You cannot get IPv4 if for normal use if you are an existing account holder. Even if you are eligible the most you get is 4 /24s.

This gives a whole new dimension to the old "give me the remote". Just imagine this with two kids in the house (and they need not be Dash and Violet).

The difference is how the money is consumed. The fact that the money is collected via payroll is of little relevance.

In an insurance based system theoretically, you can take your money and go to a different provider as long as said provider is happy to treat you for the regulated price.

In Sweden you originally could, then you could not, then you had again "patient choice" in the early 90-es, then you could not and so on. Now you see it, now you do not depending on how "social" is the current party in power. However the option to HAVE this is present and it is an inherent part of the "insurance" style system. That is what the original law of 1946 intended to.

Similarly, theoretically, you can set up a private clinic, pass a few regs and as long as you are happy to treat patients for the amount of money spec-ed by the insurance you can charge that to the national health insurance. AFAIK in Sweden presently, this is mostly theory (but the law actually allows it). In most other EU countries it is the practice and the norm.

UK is a take it or leave it with no such option. NHS is state funded and the option of taking your treatment money and going elsewhere is not available even in theory. Some people tried that one by going to France during the worst years of NHS under Blair. They even sued the UK in the EU court. The end-result is that you can now apply to the NHS itself to have your treatment elsewhere which is from the realm of "yeah, right, not that this will ever happen".

That is the fundamental difference between the rest of EU and the UK.

  Anyway, this is all hugely OT.

Sweden is a mandatory health insurance country. National Health Insurance act of 1946 implemented since 1955.

It tried to do "national health care budget" in the 1980-es by adding extra funding different from insurance into the health budget. This resulted in a spectacular UK style fiasco with waiting lists, failing care and so on. It fixed some of it by going back to closer to the original system in the early 90-es only to have that axed on "we are not so far right" grounds and fail again. It is now looking to go back to where it started.

Out of all examples that mandatory health insurance works and should not be spoiled by budgetary injections it is probably the best one because you have a system that is mandatory insurance by law and a long set of data on how it fails when it is not executed as intended.

By the way - do some reading before calling other people idiots.

It was a German idea originally from immediately after WW2 (1949 or so). USA conservatives copied it after it was adopted by all of Western Europe sans UK. In any case, that is how the medical system in all of Europe except UK works nowdays.

I have lived in the US, in a country with a regulated mandatory medical insurance (Bulgaria - it reformed to medical insurance from "socialist health for all") and in the UK which is the last remaining developed country worldwide with "pure socialist" style health system. Trust me, mandatory regulated insurance with regulated costings is exactly what you want and what you need if you want a working health system. We have yet to invent anything better.

The pre-Obama US system is broken - in the absense of regulatory oversight it is guaranteed to inflate costs while using doctors which are kept awake only by drugs at the end of a 30+ hour shift (I have friends who work in US A&E/ER so I know this first hand). So is the "socialist" UK one. You end up waiting 12+ months for treatment and receiving letters asking if you are still alive (I keep one of these as an example on why it is broken). What Obama did is the step in the right direction.

In any case - on article main subject:

1. I am not surprised.
2. That is why I run my mail server (with my mail dating back to 1999) till this day and it physically located where 3rd parties cannot access it.
3. That is why any data of any significance that leaves my systems (offsite backups,etc) is always encrypted AES256. I still keep a couple of Via C7s operational in my house for this exact reason - they can encrypt at up to 100Mbit/s "free of charge".

Kind'a. It prevents Apple using the software commercially within its business methods and business strategy.

Apple is a known "patents at dawn" company. That does not fit the GPLv3 mutual assured destruction patent clauses.

So while other companies can use GPLv3 commercially, Apple cannot do so. It will be in violation of the license the next time it tries to lob a patent nuke which is something it does on a regular basis.

Unfortunately, Apple is not alone here. Nearly all big companies are in the same position and they will follow suit. While I understand RMS aims and ideas here, that is really not the way. GPL should not be a replacement for court, legislation and enforcement.

Quoting an old Russian joke (from one of their best stand-up comedians):

An American University is a strange entity where Russian professors teach Chinese students a technical discipline in English language.

I would not say so.

That is what is the key factor in determining how much funding you get. The chart gives a good initial estimate of the likelihood for a site to produce a cited paper.

One comment however - the method used is skewed slightly against Russian and Chinese. These two countries still have a significant amount of stuff published in their native language journals and those tend to get less than average citations from abroad.

It is also surprising that places crippled by war and sanctions around ex Ugoslavia still deliver top science while cough cough some of their well off neighbours do not. It also shows the _REAL_ amount of innovation going on the Indian subcontinent. Good graph for slapping anyone talking about exporting research there.

US T-Mobile is very different from T-Mob elsewhere. They use their own architecture and do things differently from the rest of the T-Mob franchises. This does not mean better - just different.