The trust issues sound... problematic.

It's the next big thing: Streisand marketing.

And this has been today's example of why the Geneva conventions should have included a section forbidding free software developers and researchers from ever naming anything.

It's also funny that we spend the first 2-3 decades of life being trained and educated in a deliberate attempt to modify our brains...to the point that any parent who wants their child to exist in a "natural" human state would be sent to prison for child abuse. We pride ourselves on being "civilized", and redefine "human" to mean denying our biological nature. Society is founded on that principle, and while as a people we try to modify ourselves to become more intelligent and compassionate, education-turned-indoctrination can also make us into monsters, and even the most liberal societies train us to accept certain injustices.

So when they say technology can change who we are, I suggest that we have been excelling at changing who we are for thousands of years. Whether a particular technique is "good" or "bad" in a moral sense depends on whether it stirs or stunts our capacity for empathy, and whether it encourages us to grow and diversify or enforces a rigid set of behavior.

Is there anyone with two brain cells left, apart from die hard libertarians, who supports the idea of private policing and armies? I mean it boggles my mind it really does. So corporations are buying governments. The solution? Remove the goverments! WTF?

Someone was (accused of) making a bunch of copies of something, without permission.

The accuser's lackey hands over information, before the Court decides if it's appropriate to enter it into evidence. The Court decides it isn't (yet) appropriate, and orders all copies of the evidence destroyed.

IOW, the accuser is now accused of making a bunch of copies of something, without permission. They just got a taste of their own medicine, at the hands of an unhappy judge.

One doesn't defend stupid beliefs with firearms. One defends, with firearms if necessary, the right to hold those stupid beliefs.

To paraphrase Jefferson, does it twist your arm or pick your pocket if your neighbor's beliefs are (in your view) stupid? Your neighbor probably thinks the same of your beliefs. So what? It's that little thing called the First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of conscience and dissent. If you have a problem with that, then I suggest you work to rescind it. Just remember, once you take away your neighbor's freedoms, you've also lost those same freedoms for yourself.

Microsoft gave Valve specific knowledge on how to bypass UAC for most tasks. It's the only program I've run that hasn't triggered UAC more than once.

He didn't just attend; he graduated with a Bachelor's and a Master's in engineering.

Maybe his beliefs are ignorant, but it's a safe bet he knows how to defend them.

Stephen Chu, the whiz kid who's now being named as a "person of interest" in the mis-management of the Dept. of Energy loans to so-called "green" companies.