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.

how about editing summaries before putting them on? This reads like, and I am sorry to say, a story straight from elementary school.

that this can be more efficiently calculated using simple linear programming. Solutions are then even sure to be optimal, in contrast to when using GAs.

In case of gcc, consider using -Wall and it will pick up on such things. Apparently it's somehow just not really forbidden by the standard. Also realise that C++, for all its OO-ness, still is a language built to give the programmer ample low-level power. With all the ugliness and weirdness that may come from it.

I already did not expect anything else. Look at Dragon Age. Good game, but bugfest galore when it comes to DLC. And who'd you think is primarily concerned with that specific part: Bioware or EA? And do you think EA even cares, or even puts up half able people at their service desk?
More recent then: Dragon Age: Awakenings, expansion of the aforementioned game. I have never played a game which was more blatantly unfinished. Characters were rushed in, options were butchered-out. How do you know? Well, because they didn't even have the time to properly remove all traces. I realise this has been getting the norm for more and more games nowadays. But it's affecting more and more potentially really good games. Civilisation 5 anyone? Or Neverwinter Nights 2 back in the day?

My only hope is on consumer power. I will not buy any product, specifically EA products, before I *know* it is proper. I will not buy at launch. I will sit and wait until the bugs have been fixed, or until I forget about it. I hope many will do the same and companies will again produce only products which are *finished*, and developers regain their pride and tell publishers to sod off when they have to.

But thanks to the insider speaking out, confirming once again rushing is the norm nowadays.

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.