http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/12/07/wikileaks_17/index.html

http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/2010/12/04/assanges-chief-accuser-has-her-own-history-with-us-funded-anti-castro-groups-one-of-which-has-cia-ties/

BetterPrivacy has worked for me over a year. Can be set to remove all of these LSOs ("supercookies") on browser exit. Can be set to delete by timer or manually when erasing other history information. Can be set to notify when a new LSO is stored.

The only caveat is that to not lose any Flash game saves, you need to add the cookies or the domains hosting them to the exception list.

Please excuse the karma whoring. Just noticed that Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists said the same in these words:

Wikileaks' target is unjust secretive material. They have been selective in their publishing and concentrated on revealing two-faced politics and outright corruption. Now that government is anticipating this kind of material to be leaked, they'll cramp down their effectiveness in handling this material.

If the officials decide to share unjustly secretive material in the same networks with justifiedly secret material, it's their call. Either unjustly secret material or effective sharing in one network.

As for security of the US of A, Wikileaks has likely only done to increase it. If one out of three million people have risked their life leaking to a non-profit oganization, rest assured that some others have leaked for profit and prosperity to competing, corrupt governments. Nobody knows if this has happened after 2001 Robert Hanssen and George Trofimoff cases or not, but now everyone knows it certainly was not just possible but easy.

There, corrected that for you.

• Block the particular offender, because it would leave all others like it intact
• Use sentiment analysis, because it would discriminate any controversial subject
• Begin to expose user reviews for merchants alongside their search results without affecting the search results.

Instead they developed an "algorithmic solution which detects the merchant from the Times article along with hundreds of other merchants that, in our opinion, provide an extremely poor user experience."

Before reading TFA my thought was that they could merely put zero weight on links in reviews claiming negative user experience. But Google's blog post says that was already being done: The review sites' links are rel=nofollow. "Ironically, some of the most reputable links to Decor My Eyes came from mainstream news websites such as the New York Times and Bloomberg."

NY Times article states on page 3 that "Google is intimately familiar with the rage inspired by DecorMyEyes. If you type the company’s name in a Google Shopping search, you’ll see a collection of more than 300 reviews, many of them arias sung in the key of livid." My guess is that they have finally stopped ignoring this information for their search results.

The tricky part is to keep the algorithm not suspect to manipulation by merchants who would write good reviews for themselves and bad for the competition.

Anything they can make hit the news will be repeated mindlessly by a million of non-critical readers around the Europe. Plus a million of headlines-only readers. Plus three millions of "I heard it somewhere" people. What they are actually getting to by that we can speculate only, but here are a few ideas:

• Those five million people contain a lot of voters.
• The rest of the five million people contains several government authorities.
• The more people they get to be on side of Vista the less government can afford regulating it. Of which follows:
• If EU decides to act against Vista, they are also acting against themselves since MS's study bought a lot of opinions pro Vista who just want to get to using the software and feel the economic boom in their pockets.