+1 Funny. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about here... the idea is not to appeal to coders with geeky heros, it's to get people who aren't coders to code. If will.i.am can talk someone into a computer science degree, great... where's the problem?

er... they have to start somewhere? it's not meant to be fool proof. just better than reading all of them. do you, when you browse the web, look at every single document, following every link, until you get one that is relevant? no, you go to google, put in some keywords, and look at those results. Do you get wrong pages? Same thing. I don't think the government should be reading our emails without a warrant or anything, I'm just saying, logistically speaking, there is nothing wrong with producing false positives, there are many ways to weed them out, even before 'reading' them. there is always the possibility they'd get false positives even just picking emails at random to read too, so I don't see what your issue is... if the moral implication of searching people's email is what you're upset about, then complain about that. But if you're already past that point, and you're going to search them, keywords are a good start. I don't see how that's anything but self-evident.

I see your point, but your example is perhaps a little unfortunate: most of the financial fraud would probably be committed by the accounting department (sorry, couldn't resist.)

They're not auto-matic indictments, they're just keywords to narrow things down when say... you have a tarball of a bazillion emails from wikileaks uploaded to some bitttorrent site. (Yes, I mean for you, not the government to use, it was an example.) Still, one wonders what the FBI, who produced the list, has on their keyword list "warrantless" "we dont need a judge" "wiretap" "domestic spying" "naw, dont' bother getting a warrant" "security letter."

True. I just meant all things considered, and on balance with the ridiculousness of trying to be fair with all the other crap that's available. I'm not even in favor of government funding schools at all, but since this is how it works, and I can't change that, at least there are a bunch of people who will at least learn about something they should know.

good

It may yet be a scientific triumph, but a public opinion flop. Or a thestudio_bob flop.

This is obviously a very scientific study.

lol. I'd vote that up if I could.

The website is just a flag, a sign post, a Hello World, for the CIA. It's not related to operations. OOOOH! HAXORS! This is like calling someone who guesses your password a hacker.

yes, I do agree on that last point.  I still see similarities of the IPO with madoff and ponzi's deal though since you as the original seller know there is no value to the company, really because the business model is dead in the water (For lots of reasons.)  So the only way it is any good to anyone on the stock market is if the price is above zero, and for each guy selling it, it gets a little closer to zero every day, without possibility of going up because the model doesn't support a higher price nor dividends.  There is nothing on the horizon for them that can pump up the price short of people (new suckers) thinking they'll get to flip it to someone else.  This is very much like a ponzi scheme. perhaps the fault doesn't lie entirely in the company, but also with everyone else who made an IPO on a sham operation possible.

no. it means you pay out the early suckers with new suckers money. that is the definition of a ponzi scheme. when you run out of new suckers the whole thing breaks down.