They changed the outcome by observing it! This is just another example of Big Physics ruining the results of science by observing the location of particles.

Actually, their site doesn't even work with Chrome 15.x on Linux. So I think my browser is securing me pretty darn well.

This just in, all our competition sucks, news at 11.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=24.344281,54.333744&spn=0.042071,0.092869&t=h&z=14 He somehow managed to write it upside down too. Whoops.

Ubuntu 10.04 LTS, accept no substitute. Maybe use a Ubuntu 10.10.2 desktop to manage them, it's easy to use. (11.04 is still unstable, IMO.)

It actually all depends on what packages you plan on running. Then cross reference that against what your options are, I think you'll run out of options quickly, TBH.

And you just need putty on the windows side. But, if you have to, all of them can run x-windows generally these days. I just find Ubuntu to be the easiest, plus their packaging system is the best, being Debian under the covers.

Please note, these are opinions, and I'm entitled to my informed opinion.

Just so we're clear here, a news aggregator site creates more traffic to news sites than a social media site.

Breaking news: People reading a news site are more likely to read other news sites than people playing farmville, news at 11.

I cannot believ* that the world has come down to this.

I wouldn** imagin* that any other compan** would ever try this terrib*** idea.

A positive evolutionary trait usually provides the mutated with a better survival rate, or attracts a better mate, or gives an advantage in an most circumstances. Yet even the most successful of the autistic usually have a lower survival rate, a worse chance at attracting a quality mate, and their advantages are in very focused circumstances. I would not say that it fits with the standards of evolution. Only the most successful are going to survive, of course, but those instances are rare, while the rest are much less successful, leading to a realistic evolutionary dead end. Excellent concentration abilities has it's price, especially if it involved memorizing pokedex's.

Of course, this assumes that autism is mostly nature and not nurture or environment, which is not proven yet either.

And it helps to be signed into post correctly. Oh well. Please support an Alan Turing Google Doodle. Submit the idea to proposals@google.com.

Guess the guys at Intel have been watching Fight Club a little too much.

Getting bored kids upset with people on the internet is easy. Some think of nothing of destroying someone's life, at least socially. Others are there just amuse themselves. There a lot of people in the middle, in both the giving and receiving end of these attacks.

Convincing someone to kill and be killed is much much harder and a completely different ball of wax.

So the differences between asking a Gamestop member about Battletoads and strapping a bomb to your chest are pretty vast. Arresting the person asking about Battletoads for harassment will just cause the Streisand effect, I think.

So is the person who placed that sign, are they guilty of any crimes? They most likely would try to prosecute them under certain gang laws that say if you're in the gang, and one person in your gang breaks the law, the entire gang can be prosecuted on the same offense. How soon till you are treated the same way for being someone's friend on facebook? It's a slippery slope until we're all criminals in some small way.

I'm also curious what computer crime someone might be accused of for loading a company's webpage several thousand times an hour. At what point does it go from 'minor annoyance' to 'criminal'? You can look at Anonymous' attack on Scientology in the same way, they are constantly under scrutiny to make sure they are following the laws, or they could be arrested. Many are normal people upset with a system, so they do what they can within the law. There are some people who take it too far I'm sure, but for the rest in the middle, what happens to them?

And apparently disclaimers have become popular in this thread.

Anonymous is just the first of many future darknets that will be nearly impossible to destroy. You might take out a ringleader or two, but 4 others would stand up to take their place if they felt that it was unjust. And in the end, it's death by a thousand harmless cuts, or in this case, 1,000 users that don't like something running the their Ion cannons under central control. In this case, this dude is using social networking like facebook to figure out who are hackers. I doubt they have many connections to other hackers on facebook or twitter. It's most likely random unrelated acquaintances, so I think the guy's research is flawed anyway.

The best example of what one of these organized systems could do is a story by Bruce Sterling called Maneki Neko. It is what happens when people get organized but maintain some level of anonymity. We are not to this level yet, but I suspect it right around the corner. It will do strictly good at first, but eventually it will ruin someone's life. Just as Anonymous has ruined some people's lives, they've done a little good for some, like a great birthday. It doesn't justify the destruction, but it's bored kids on the internet, so what are you going to do?

The news media will make a big deal about future 'attacks', but some will be harmless kids having fun. But if you start to push that everyone involved in these groups must be destroyed, those people who are marginally involved will suddenly get VERY involved in your destruction. So be careful.

tl;dr: They found bacteria alive in salt crystals

Heesa nosa goodsa to meesa dead!