No, but I need more than 5.

Thanks for the link, although it doesn't actually explain whether the formula is derived from observation or from physical principles. As it turns out (with a bit of digging): both. It's an approximation that is sensitive to your choice of C and C0 (in IPCC: current and pre-industrial CO2 concentrations) and fits well to both empirical observations and theoretical expectations within a reasonable range of CO2 concentration. A detailed explanation can be found at http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-seven-the-boring-numbers/ .

Used alone these devices can effectively prevent trojans from sniffing password entry, and can guarantee high entropy in the user secret which will prevent brute-force attacks (like password guessing).

Used alone these devices are ineffective against man-in-the-browser and various spear-phishing attacks, and (unlike passwords) are vulnerable to physical theft. Password protecting the device reduces the vulnerability to physical theft.

The minimum security requirement for an authentication device is that it has its own trusted user interface, and requires PIN or biometric authentication via that interface, per login/transaction.

You realize copyright protects OSS software? Check my homepage if you think to be in favor of IP I must be anti-OSS..

I'm a creator, and I'm in favor of copyright. That is both for open source projects, where the copyright keeps my work from being stolen, and for proprietary projects, where the copyright keeps my work from being stolen.

I guess we'll let democracy decide. :) Let's just say my IP protections don't feel very threatened by this group of crackpots.

"The annual and decadal land surface temperature from the BerkeleyEarth average, compared to a linear combination of volcanic sulfate emissions and the natural logarithm of CO2."

Why the natural logarithm? Do we have a hypothesis to explain why the overall forcing effect of CO2 follows the natural logarithm of atmospheric concentration? Why a linear combination with volcanic sulfate? Does the forcing of sulfate have a linear relationship to the natural logarithm of CO2? Or is this just the mathematical transformation that makes CO2+sulfate changes fit the plot of change in mean surface temperature?

In the absence of sound theoretical answers to these questions, these are interesting but not compelling plots. The IPCC4 report (for example) goes into far more detail about our theoretical understanding of climate forcing from different components, and how projections are built up from this understanding that apply correctly in retrospect, leading to a more compelling argument for climate change.

Don't worry, no sane Australian will be voting for them.. As an Australian software developer I assure you I'm all for sensible, realistic IP protection. (But no more than is necessary to reward innovation / creativity.)

That's my problem also, I found it weird reading an article from the BBC about why we hate horsemeat, as if that's what this is about..

Yeah I hate interactive websites..

Not usually, they typically pay someone to do a certain job by whatever means within the law when contracting.

It would probably go against their IT policy though to allow someone else access to your account, and if he signed any NDAs or other IP agreements without getting the Chinese subcontractor to sign (which would still be pretty questionable) then he'll be in trouble.

He was saying that computer science isn't really about computers. I think that is nonsense.

If you want to discuss whether the statement "computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes" is strictly logically correct in some way.. I couldn't care less.

There is a lot of overlap between what's in a computer science course and what's in a software engineering course. The fact that there is such an overlap should point us to the fact that computer science isn't this weird abstract offshoot of mathematics that isn't really related to actual computers, but that it is very practical information which gives you a firm grounding in how computers function.

I don't get it.

Everyone who comes by our department has "an IT background."

Smart people can (evidently) be wrong sometimes.

Computer science to computers is more like human biology to surgery, than telescopes to astronomy. You can be an expert telescope maker / maintainer, and use a telescope, without knowing a thing about astronomy. You cannot be an expert computer maker / maintainer / programmer without knowing computer science.