Gawker article misses the point: it's not journalism that is is crisis, it's the business models of media companies that are. To own a printing press, it used to be a license to print money. Some newspapers in 1990's had 40% ebit. Nowadays we have more quality and niche content than ever before. Blogs, social media and startups have forced journalists out from their old role as gatekeepers of news. Interactive journalism, web video, data journalism and other new forms of storytelling have created a golden age of innovation to people who are not thinking print-first or broadcast-only. As a professional journalist in major media outlet, I welcome this change. I just hope that we are able innovate viable business models to sustain what we are doing.

I updated a vanilla laptop running win 7, had problems with AMD drivers and ended up in continuous BSOD-reboot -loop. Next thing is to try clear install from the ISO version, but MS servers seem quite slow to download anything. I'd advice against updating in near future.

Will Google forget european results for US customers as well? If I use Tor from EU with exit node in US, and do a Google.com search, will they censor the results?

Better to have firewall of EU than global jail by US.

So there is an unofficial network of european police depts called ENLETS (European Network of Law Enforcement Technology Services). They have a wish that something like this could be put into cars. To post this into Slashdot as real news story means, that the editors have no understanding of how the EU works. It's a strong democracy with powerful member states. To pass this proposal is as probable as to ban hand guna in Texas. Someone might plan it, but it does not mean they'll succeed.

There is an citizen's initiative to change the law and if they manage to gather 50000 signatures, the parliament must vote on it. No crowdsourcing (at least any more) and slim change of this initiative passing through the parliament and actually becoming a law.

Swedish development aid to Cambodia began in 1979. Since then Sweden has given millions of dollars to Cambodia. The article by The Next Web and Torrent Freak have no evidence at all to back their claim. It's biased reporting, based on no research and strong prejudice. It is ridiculous to claim that Sweden would use millions of dollars to arrest a man, who is, from government perspective, a petty criminal.