It was alread *rejected* from pirate bay.
Look around for "10 millions emails yandex mailru gmail w passwords 2014".
It might still be in some cache (that's where I found it).
And it starts poping up around on other tracker.

Indeed, IB Times wins the record of the worst ever summary of microbiology subject.
(mixing virus and bacteria and toxins. And multiplication and dead cells. W.. T.. F.. )

(Also, the magnets have nothing to do with the removal. They are just the mecinal technique used to move the metal beads around. It's the manose-binding lecitin on them that hold the magic.
It's not "removing Viruses and bacteria using magnets" but "removing them using lecitins which happen to be moved around thanks to magnets").

The nature paper it self is good, and the method is typical technique used for extraction / purification (so the principle is solid).

The relative novelty of this method is that, instead of using an antibody as the binding agent (something that needs to be targeted specifically. In vertebrate they are part of the *adaptive* immunity : immunity that the body needs to train) this method uses manose binding lectins (something that isn't specific and bind to lots of targets: bacteria, virus, toxins, etc. In eukaryote, they are part of the *innate* immunity: immunity you are born with, you don't need to train. Your body will already produce lecitins against sugar patterns that aren't frequent in your body, even if you've never encountered them).

Thus, its able to purify and extract from a patient's blood bacteria, virus and toxin *THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW beforehand* (i.e.: anything that presents a pattern of sugar on the surface that isn't common in the body and for which they have the corresponding lecitin).
(Where classical extraction usually rely on antibodies targeting what you would like).

It's a bit equivalent to use coal to purify blood: coal will indiscriminately extract any big organic molecule without you needing to know it in advance and thus is a valuable tool in case of poisoning

Joking aside, cycle riskshaw *are* present in the occident.
Specially after the rise of e-bikes, they are all the crase in European big cities.

Now, regarding the CO2 emissions, this might be solved by using a lighter vehicle for such errends.

To transport a few clients and their suit-cases to the airport, yes, a Uber driver needs a big-enough car.
BUT!
To carry and drop around a few lunchboxes or pharmacy bags, a Smart car, a motorcycle scooter or an e-bike is pretty well enough.
(Also european cities tend to have separate lanes for bikes, meaning that the Uber driver can bring your delivery while avoiding traffic jams).

Now on the other side, there are health benefits in taking a break and walking a bit to pick up your food.

Random example of such service in Geneva, Switzerland.

Pharmacies also operate their own such services (it's a popular job for high-schoolers to earn a few bucks).

And, unlike taxi service, can also be achieved with much lighter transportation vehicle (said drug-delivering high-schooler tend to do it with their motocycle scooter, e-bike, etc. also because it's easier to get a license for it) which overall can potentially lower emission and lower traffic in dense cities.
(well at least here in Europe where bikes, e-bikes, light motorcycle, etc. are very popular... in gaz-gurgling-SUV-land, well, YMMV).

You mean like this ?
This proves it possible although (as in the case of Star Citizen, and the likes) it got successfully funded because the book has big names behind it: Zach Wiener and Boulet.

The book COULD be not finished yet:
- ...if it comes from a known guy. Popular author which has already shown able to produce good work. Can have successful kick-starter (I have this great idea that I want to write about, but my current publisher considers it a bit riské and doesn't want to shell out all the money for it).
Basically, any idea proposed by Terry Pratchet would get insta-funded, no matter how weird the premises.
- ...if it again follows the "prototype" rule. Wannabe authors writes "Chapter 1" on his free time and decides that he want to get paid to make the rest instead of having a main job and doing the book on the side. Wannabe authors makes chapter 1 available. Interested reader notice that current work is better quality than the crappy fan-fic which pollute the interweb and that the wannabe authors shows promising qualities. Book might get funded.
- slight variation of the above: a blogger who has shown very good and promising writing ability. Nothing from the book exist yet, the authors hasn't written a book before either, but has repeatedly shown to be able to output massive amount of written material with a good sense of humour.

Notice that, both situation could also work with a publisher. The only reason to go for Kickstarter is if for some reason no publisher is interested in the material it self (the project is REALLY weird, or the main theme is controversial, etc.)

The main difficulties won't be finding potential funds for Kickstart (as in fact, the main difficulty won't be finding a publisher neither, if the project isn't too much weird).
The main difficulty would be the lack of experience in handling a publishing project.

...to and from a bitcoin exchange. any bitcoin exchange.

Unlike Western Union that you mention (where you're basically stuck with only one single service provider per system), bitcoin leaves you with full freedom of choice of how to process the BTCs you received (coin processor, classical exchange, face-2-face meeting like localbitcoin, or simply keeping them in BTC form to re-use them (just watchout for currently big market fluctuations)).
And your choice of method at your end has no influence at what I chose at my end.
I, the client, could be using localbitcoin, and you the merchant could be using coinbase.

So Paypal, Western Union, or TFA's WebPay aren't directly comparable to bitcoin transactions.

SEPA are more similar: any SEPA-enabled bank in Europe can send amounts of money to any other SEPA bank.
I might be using a Swiss bank, your bank might be German. But both of us can pick any account in any bank as endpoint, as long as both banks support SEPA.
(And bitcoin are a bit faster than SEPA payment).

That's some improvement compared to the current situation of payments over internet, where you're basically forced to have a PayPal account, and have a MasterCard/Visa credit card, just because that's what most of the web is using.

Reddit comments are being actively deleted.
Luckily, Google hasn't blacklisted the piratebay cache, yet.

checking.... Nope. None of my password is in there.
Will pass the file around for my friends to check theirs.

What search engine were you using to locate it?
I'm sure it won't show up on google's search results.

(Or other pointers on how to get the list with passwords ?)

Microphone will pick up *a* bang, and thus will give an information when *some* gun was fired in the vicinity of the police.
It could be any gun on the scene, might by the police worker's own gun just as it could be the gun of the suspect/criminal.
(Though if there are multiple police worker, with multiple microphone, maybe one could triangulate a probable point of origin for the shot)

This wrist bands pick up vibration, and thus will give an information when *the gun held in the hand wearing the wrist band* has recoiled (and thus fired).
It's the exact gun in the hand of the police worker, very few doubt about it.

And depending on the days you pick up, an investor might lose 4x of what money was invested.
You got lucky, others won't necessarily.

(I happen to have been lucky, too, only with a very small initial investment)

Regarding: 1, 2 and 3 :
I wasn't referring to matching single transaction/single keys and IP adresses, etc.

I was more referring that, if you want to use bitcoin in a meaningful way, you'll have to interract with the real world.
At some point, a real bitcoin user who isn't just playing with bitcoin for the sake of it, will buy an actual good.
Meaning that the seller will need to send the goods to an actual address.
At the other end of the chain, a would-be future bitcoin customer will need actual BTCs to do transaction. Nowaday it's not practical to mine any significant amount of BTCs using hardware available to the average customer. That means that a future bitcoin customer will need to acquire BTC, usually buying them from money (from an exchange or following a face-to-face meeting, etc.)

So no matter through how many public key the BTCs hops, a motivated enough investigator can always track indentities at both end of the chain:
- initial acquisition
- final spending.
sometime it's going to be the same identity (because it's the same person buying the BTCs and spending them after a few public key hops in-between), sometime it's a different identity (because somewhere along the chain, the BTCs 'changed hands' in a way that wasn't registered and matched to any address: for example 2 random people seeding direct donation to each-others address without an real-world interaction. Might happen several time along a chain).

If a really motivated investigator has enough resources (now we're speaking government-level), it is possible to follow tons of such "money trails". By comparing all of them together, it is possible to build whole nets of interactions, and you can match real identities. Even when 1 single money trails is uncertain (money might have switched hands along the track between known end-point), taking into accounts lots of other such money trails help lift uncertainty.

That's a good valid way to blur the trail.
In the block chains, what you'll see is thousand of user pouring money into the exchange (user funding their accounts) and thousand of users getting money back (user doing withdrawal from the exchange account). Everything in between happens "behind closed doors". The actual buy/sell actions aren't recorded in the blockchain, they happen in the exchange software's database. In the block chain there's just the exchange who's officially held amount of BTCs corresponds to the amount of BTCs currently being exchange by all users. More or less (see MtGox's heist when those numbers don't match anymore).

So trying to make sense of the complex network of interaction is *hard*, *really hard*. Well beyond the efforts used in simply "lifting uncertainty due to invisible switch of owners". Probably only a few poeple in Russia's FSB and US' NSA might have a slim chance of tracking a suspect. (And the tracking is more likely to rely on backdoors and trojans).

Joking aside:

at least bitcoin has on purpose been designed in such a way to make it impossible for a central authority to freeze an account, because on purpose there are no central authorities.
So that's a relatively small advantage over paypal.
(although, in both case, these system should be used EXCLUSIVELY for payments only. You should only use them to push money around, you should NOT use them to store money. Neither Paypal, nor the bitcoin network are banks. So if you got a big amount of money frozen, it's only your own fault).

The entire security scheme of bitcoin is actually based on the exact opposite:
Not only is it not anonymous, it's public knowledge *BY DESIGN*.

Every single bitcoin transaction (or any other alt-coin for that matter) is publicly broadcast on the network.
Every single full node on the network is always aware of the transaction.

The point is that, thanks to this broadcast, every single bitcoin user can independently verify the transactions and (based on these checks) together all the node can agree who has how many coins left.
Unlike traditional banking (or a web payment like paypal, for exemple), there is no central authority that is the official referrer about account balances (with banks: the bank is the official authority about the content of its users' acounts. With webpayment: paypal is the official authority about the content of paypal accounts, etc. BUT with bitcoin, everyone can control the history of transactions by looking up the blockchain, there is no official central "Bitcoin, inc." that is in charge).

Due to this design (security by public broadcast) that means that no transaction is secret.

At best, it could be called "pseudonymous": the transaction are hidden behind public key hashes. (the civil/legal identity of parties of a transaction aren't directly written into the block chain. Instead the public key hashes are written).
so there's a low risk that an identity is immediately leaked, just by casual look of the blockchain.

It at least takes a conscious effort to track public keys accros the blockchain and follow the money train until an actual identity can be matched.
But that's completely possible and well within the capabilities of governments.

The failure mode is entirely different.

- Regular cruise control keeps the speed, completely ignoring what is in front of the car: it will *blindly* keep the accelerator down and stay at the same speed. If the driver gets distracted, the car will continue straight ahead no-matter-what and can hit something and cause an accident. Leaving a regular cruise control unattended will certainly lead to accidents.
In most extreme situation, if you fall asleep behind the wheel, the car will hit whatever ends-up in front, and you'll have an accident for sure.

- Adaptive cruise control / collision avoidance systems, etc... are designed differently. The car is more or less (within capability of its sensors) aware if there's something in front. In case there's something that the car could collide, the car will automatically slow down and eventually break if needed. It is not blind, it only keeps the speed when there are no obstacles. The *default* failure mode is stop slow down and stop to avoid a collision, unless the driver takes back command and does something different. Leaving an adaptive cruise contol / collision avoidance system unattended will lead to the car eventually stopping when it will eventually meet something.
In most extreme situation, if you fall asleep behind the wheel, the car will eventually stop on its own once there is eventually something in front.
You'll be awaken by the car beeping to tell you that it has stoped to avoid something in front, and by the horn of other driver, angry that you've stopped in the middle of nowhere.

The whole difference is that older technologies *ALWAYS NEEDED* to rely on a driver, otherwise bad things will happen for sure.
Whereas newer technologies are able by default to take a safer solution (usually slowing down / stopping).
(BTW, some of these *newer technochlogies* are already street legal and already around you inside some vehicles).

GM is simply adding steering control to the mix (the car will also follow lanes).

In short, there's a huge difference between a car that stupidly keeps it speed no matter what, and a car that will only drive onward if there's nothing in front and will otherwise slow down and halt. The new GM's technology is of the second kind (like any other assistance in most modern cars).