That's ... somewhat disturbing, but not all that surprising.

I did see a result that caught my attention as a "how the fuck have they not secured their site?!?", and did a bit more digging:

This document is confidential site:corp.bankofamerica.com

And you didn't bother to figure out who it was and tell her? Or file a complaint with management?

Nothing wrong with the keyboard. Those are Swedish place-names, and the fucked up parts are due to Slashdot being incapable of handling non-Latin characters.

That's not really a loop, unless you want to accept the outlying stations in the loop as VÃstra Skogen, Ã...keshov, Ã-stermalmstorg, Liljeholmen and SkÃrmabrink.

The articles only mention New York, London, Moscow and Tokyo.

I'm curious to see if the two large ones I know personally were included.

I sort of agree and sort of disagree.

Should the police be afraid of making mistakes? Depends on the mistake.

If they cause grievous harm to someone - yes, that they should be afraid of. Arresting someone who is innocent or is later found not guilty - no.

The prosecutors, however, should be held to a much higher standard, as they are the ones who are ultimately responsible. I.e. if they don't feel a case is strong enough, they'll have to release the suspect.

And in cases like this, where someone is found not guilty after having spent 11 months in jail, I wouldn't mind seeing the prosecutor responsible spend, say half that time behind bars for contempt of court or something. No regular income etc. (i.e. they don't get to simply sit in a cell and collect an income from the state).

Not in every single case, but if it could be codified in a reasonable way, it would certainly make railroading a lot less interesting for the prosecution. I mean - it's one thing to lose a case, but losing a case AND having to spend time in jail? Very unlikely that prosecutors will be willing to risk that simply because of political pressure.

Thankfully in my native language we don't use the term "organic" for food items - we use ... well, something like "ecologically".

However, when I'm talking to English speaking 'green freaks', it is rather fun to point out that by their own standards dog shit is organic.

The same is true for urine. Not only is it organic in the chemical sense (uric acid), but for people who swear by organic foods etc., it is also a wholly organic product.

Granted, I rather doubt either of those are particularly healthy, but hey - at least it's organic, right?

The whole organic vs organic thing reminds me of an old anecdote (not sure if it's true though).

A news crew gets a call about a tanker truck crashing, resulting in a large chemical spill nearby, so they rush off to cover it. Two minutes later they get another call from their boss:
"Don't bother with the tanker truck story - turns out it was only organic chemicals."

Considering the article ruled out some software, because it was considered too difficult to use, I suspect Elemental Technologies' software would be ruled out due to cost.

So, your problem is with the fact that it doesn't match any known organism, because we don't know what else might be out there?

I can't claim to understand much about particle physics, but I would guess that this particular arrangement of quarks has a bigger interaction with the Higgs field, thus making it more massive.