Speaking of loopholes and the WSJ paywall, you can actually get around it by Googling part of the URL.

This is the WSJ URL: http://www.wsj.com/articles/vo...
Google this: volkswagen-may-not-face-environmental-criminal-charges

Then just click the first link for WSJ. I assume they are blindly checking the referrer. I have tried this on various other news sites that paywall with success.

I briefly read the article though, nothing particularly useful.

Wikipedia goes into a bit of detail about it but in basic summary...

TraceMonkey was the first JIT compiler for SpiderMonkey released in Firefox 3.5.

JagerMonkey is a different design on TraceMonkey which outperforms it in certain circumstances (Some differences between TraceMonkey and JagerMonkey)

IonMonkey is another attempt at better perfecting the idea of JagerMonkey allowing even greater optimisations under particular circumstances.

However TraceMonkey, JagerMonkey and IonMonkey are part of SpiderMonkey as JIT compilers, not a replacement of SpiderMonkey itself.

I work at a website development company and one of our clients websites was hacked/defaced. The web host blamed out of date software on our client's website for the breach and the deface. Our client was on a shared hosting package with the hosting company.

When I was told to be the one to clean up the mess on the website and after getting rid of recently modified files (most of the site hasn't been touched for several months) and other malicious files, I stumbled upon a directly conveniently named "sym". This directory contained a symbolic link to the Root directory on the site which stunned me a little that it could be created in the first place.

I checked some folders and files inside and I had full read/write access to any file on the system. The very first thing I did was make my own employer aware of the situation before then informing the web hosting company that there is a major security risk to the server. I sent the message to them two weeks ago and I have not heard a single thing since.

Since then however, the hosting company has been much harder to deal with not responding to the many messages we have sent to them regarding other issues with this particular client's hosting. The site has been defaced again but this time no matter how many times they say they reset the password to the FTP and cPanel, we still can't login. Without being able to login, we can not make our own backup of the site (database dump and files download) which means we can not move the site to another hosting company

We tried to do a second idea of actually just pointing the domain name to a temporary host with a splash page rather than the defaced page. Unfortunately with this, there were issues with who actually controlled the domain name. The Whois lookup said it was Netregistry however when contacting them, they said it was the web hosting company. Trying to login to the hosting company's domain manager, it said they were not managing that domain name.

We are actually kind of stuck with what to do now. We know we definitely want to transfer them to a new hosting company but like I said above, we can't even make a back up of the site to do a clean move. We did quote them a few months back about redoing their website (the bulk of the website was made several years ago) but they have so far resisted the rebuild.

What would any of the Slashdot crowd do if they were in the same situation?
Still fight with the hosting company to get the data?
Push the client to get a new website built with new data?
But then who would be responsible for the domain name if neither party says they are?

"CISPA, the hotly-contested cybersecurity bill making its way through Congress, has been supported by Microsoft since it was introduced..."

Ok, I will admit that I am a Windows user and I don't find Microsoft the worst company on the planet though something seems weird with this. Just because they have stopped supporting it now citing "privacy", we are meant to applaud them? They initially supported it so while it might seem like a good move now, the didn't have this problem a week ago.

It might be an attempt at clever marketing or something to take the talk off what doesn't seem like a good new version of Windows but this is stupid. They knew exactly what they were doing when they started supporting it. Not that I don't think companies wouldn't do a move like this, it is just annoying how dumb they think we are.

At least the moderators are doing their job of making the better comments higher then. I think it is great that a stable open source version of the NVIDIA driver is available. I think what really should be taken away from this is that it is another improvement to the world of open source. The knowledge gained from reverse engineering and building a suitable alternative is really all that matters. Whether or not it can handle the most high end gear or not is relevant unless they pitched it as being able to.

... to April 1st to not say this could be an elaborate April Fools joke.

I like my advertising subtle.

I agree. Have large warnings on sites that will be affected by SOPA could do it. I would really like to see it happen though, not just be talk.

With things like politicians accepting money to support legislation, my general rule is don't trust people.

Time to rebuild the internet.

I hope you are wrong too. The US are in control of a large amount of Root Name Servers so I wonder how much of the technical side of the implementation of SOPA will affect the rest of the world.

IMHO (though probably similar to everyone elses), how dumb can people be? Like, who the hell actually would make up this shit? Oh I know, US politicians backed by corporations.

Nothing new I guess.

A fair point. I started programming in Javascript before I moved to PHP, VB.Net (I regret this one), C#, Java, C++ in that order. However it could just have easily been C++ first.

If a person is really committed to learning a programming language, they would be fine learning C++ first which would teach not only all the fundamentals but also give some idea of how the system works.

It can also be unnecessary depending what they want to do though (as you suggested)

I agree like most of the people here (assuming that the comments I read account for most of the people) that patents are a bad idea. (That makes me think, I should patent "patents" or the act of making one)

Anyway, maybe a different system to patents could allow the original creator/inventor to get credit for their works instead. Rather than having a patent which creates a legal bind and lawsuits, have simply a place where the name and ideas/diagrams/notes of the idea is stored. This idea being, make it just general attribution of an idea when you use it.

Example: If Person A invented the Wheel, Person B invented the Car which uses Person A's Wheel. Person B gives credit to Person A for inventing the Wheel. This could go on to a Person C who invents a Bus. Person C gives credit to Person B for the general idea and Person A for the Wheel.

This example is pretty crap though it could work. Simply giving credit to the original creator of the idea when you use it may work. If you had a business that invented something awesome, do you really think the competition would really want to say that the idea for the technology came from you? It isn't a rock solid idea by any means however maybe this needs to be looked at from a more licensing situation (ie. GPL, Public Domain, CC etc). While ideas can one way or another be free, building upon ideas needs to credit the right people.